PDA

View Full Version : News RoundUp for UN Arms Trade Treaty 8-4-12


CaliforniaLiberal
07-06-2012, 5:58 PM
Lots of news coverage on the UN ATT. I did a couple of Google searches and you should too.

They are scheduled to complete a final draft Treaty by July 27. The way I see it, the US is the big dog at the table and as the world's biggest arms exporter wants to make sure that the final Treaty does not cut into US Arms Corporations sales. The rules presently require "consensus" agreement - all countries in the negotiations must agree before the Treaty can be made final.

Several countries, including the US, have made statements supporting no changes to domestic internal gun laws; that the final Treaty will only affect international trade. There are several countries that support what is effectively gun control for the whole world; marking and registration of all small arms and ammunition.

At least for now the US State Department is making statements supporting the 2nd Amendment. "The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld."

The US is proposing a treaty that would in effect require all the world to follow present US Export/Import Law as the best possible example.

Could be another exercise in herding cats. Every country has a different priority.

In the end the US will no more be required to follow a Treaty they don't like than all of the other International Treaties they have not signed. Like the Kyoto Protocols or the Law of the Sea or the International Court.



The Heritage Foundation

Looks like they are going to have frequent coverage as the ATT negotiations continue Check back with them.

Search results on Heritage Foundation for ATT:

http://blog.heritage.org/?s=ATT

Today's latest post

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/06/day-three-at-the-arms-trade-treaty-conference-the-u-s-speaks/



The Hill

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/236501-obama-administration-spells-out-red-lines-for-un-arms-trade-treaty

"...The United States will not allow the United Nations to impose any restrictions on Americans' gun rights, the Obama administration declared Friday, as the first week of negotiations on an international arms trade treaty came to a close. "The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense," Acting Under Secretary of State for Ams Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said..."



United States Department of State official statement, including "Key US Redlines" that the US will not tolerate any final treaty to violate. Lots of links in the text taking you to other significant US policy documents.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

"KEY U.S. REDLINES

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

There will be no lowering of current international standards.

Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT."



Canada checks in. Canada recently elected a Conservative Government and ended their Long Gun Registry.

http://o.canada.com/2012/07/06/canada-says-tracking-global-arms-sales-unrealistic/

Canada says the United Nations’ push for a global agreement to track and control the trade of firearms is “unrealistic,” and could result in a costly, ineffective new bureaucracy.

In talks at the final round of Arms Trade Treaty negotiations, now taking place in New York, federal government officials warned the treaty could result in privacy violations and exorbitant administrative bills.

Their objections echo those expressed by the Conservative government about Canada’s now-defunct long-gun registry, repealed recently after a caustic and divisive national debate.



http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-coming-feckless-debate-the-arms-trade-7165

"...Neither the good nor the bad is likely to be clarified in public discussion about the treaty within the nation that is the world's biggest arms exporter and thus the most important player in this process: the United States. We are more likely to hear the sort of ill-informed debate that too often has characterized treatment of multilateral conventions, as we have seen most recently with the law of the sea treaty..."

"...On U.S. insistence, the rules of the conference provide that unanimity is required for a draft treaty to emerge directly from it. A plausible scenario is that unanimity will not be achieved, that a draft supported by most nations will go to the General Assembly for endorsement, and that a treaty will be opened for signature and will even enter in force without the United States having endorsed it. That will repeat the experiences of the law of the sea convention and the treaty that established the International Criminal Court, with all the uncertainties of the United States not being a party to a major element of otherwise widely accepted international law...."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/final-push-for-global-arms-trade-treaty-begins-at-united-nations/2012/07/03/gJQA9yI2KW_story.html

Final push for global arms trade treaty begins at United Nations
"....In April, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, reiterated U.S. support for a treaty, but not one that regulates ammunition.

“We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms,” he said. “But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face....”


http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1209872/

"...The United States on Friday called for criteria that would ban the exports of the "widest range" of conventional weapons in an Arms Trade Treaty, which is being negotiated at the United Nations. US Assistant Secretary of State Thomas M. Countryman said each government should consider carefully before authorising the export of conventional arms "to ensure that international transfers even to legitimate end users are not made capriciously, without deliberation, or contrary to longstanding international principles."

He called for an effective treaty covering the "widest range of conventional weapons as is practical, from small arms to aircraft carriers." The US is opposed to a UN treaty that would violate the "sovereign control of domestic possession, use, or movement of arms," Countryman said.

The US is the world's biggest arms exporters, with to close 35 per cent of global arms exports. It is followed by Russia (14.9 per cent), Germany (7.4 per cent), Britain (6.5 per cent), China (6.2 per cent) and France (4 per cent)...."

Librarian
07-06-2012, 6:45 PM
Nice!

Thanks.

loosewreck
07-06-2012, 6:55 PM
Thanks for taking the time CL!

Skidmark
07-06-2012, 8:11 PM
Good info here, helps to counter the tinfoil hat brigade.

RMP91
07-06-2012, 8:13 PM
Will this affect mil-surp weapons in any way?

Are we going to see a cut-off of Russian/Soviet surplus guns?

Are prices of WWI/WWII/Cold War-era guns going to go up 500%?

dustoff31
07-06-2012, 8:27 PM
Will this affect mil-surp weapons in any way?

Are we going to see a cut-off of Russian/Soviet surplus guns?

Are prices of WWI/WWII/Cold War-era guns going to go up 500%?

Who knows? Maybe we will just continue to march. On the down side, even if the US allows the importation of these arms, it is pointless if the countries that now hold them agree to not export them for commercial sales.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-06-2012, 8:35 PM
Will this affect mil-surp weapons in any way?

Are we going to see a cut-off of Russian/Soviet surplus guns?

Are prices of WWI/WWII/Cold War-era guns going to go up 500%?


Great questions. No answers whatsoever.:shrug:

No one knows what's going to be in the final Treaty or if all those negotiators can even finish a Treaty.

You can bet that Russia will want to be keeping loose or no restrictions on their arms exports, both modern and surplus, as will all the big arms exporting nations.

I've been wondering how many Mosins are left in Russia and Eastern Europe. Are there millions left to be sold are they down to the last 100,00? Same question of all that canned MilSurp Ammo.

Yugo
07-06-2012, 8:42 PM
tagged

sharxbyte
07-06-2012, 8:46 PM
Thank you for the post.

wireless
07-06-2012, 9:19 PM
The UN arms treaty seems so pointless. It seems like it's there to make some socialist countries happy.

berg
07-06-2012, 9:27 PM
Great questions. No answers whatsoever.:shrug:

No one knows what's going to be in the final Treaty or if all those negotiators can even finish a Treaty.

You can bet that Russia will want to be keeping loose or no restrictions on their arms exports, both modern and surplus, as will all the big arms exporting nations.

I've been wondering how many Mosins are left in Russia and Eastern Europe. Are there millions left to be sold are they down to the last 100,00? Same question of all that canned MilSurp Ammo.

I know it doesn't seem like it but Russia is very strict about allowing modern military weapons to be exported. It's why we only get sporterized Saigas and Veprs. I think the surplus stuff comes from a satellite country like Ukraine or someplace.

RMP91
07-06-2012, 10:46 PM
I know it doesn't seem like it but Russia is very strict about allowing modern military weapons to be exported. It's why we only get sporterized Saigas and Veprs. I think the surplus stuff comes from a satellite country like Ukraine or someplace.

But they don't seem to have that issue with old Mosins, Makarovs, Tokarevs, SVT40s?

You know, the "obsolete" stuff :43:

GOEX FFF
07-07-2012, 12:28 AM
I know it doesn't seem like it but Russia is very strict about allowing modern military weapons to be exported. It's why we only get sporterized Saigas and Veprs. I think the surplus stuff comes from a satellite country like Ukraine or someplace.


Yep,

In 1991 after the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became an independent country and had a lot of Russia's refurbished Milsurp arms.

Also in the 90's, it was the US State Department that decided Russian military arms could not be imported to the US unless they had been in another country for 5 years or more..hence, why all of the Soviet Mosins, Nagant revolvers and many other Soviet surplus arms that are here now had been in the Ukraine and Finland over this time, and were/are allowed to be imported.

motorhead
07-07-2012, 1:01 AM
I know it doesn't seem like it but Russia is very strict about allowing modern military weapons to be exported. It's why we only get sporterized Saigas and Veprs. I think the surplus stuff comes from a satellite country like Ukraine or someplace.

so very WRONG! we get sporters because of OUR import regs. technically military rifles are verboten but there is an exemption for "sporting purposes".
the russians oppose the treaty.

Demonicspire
07-07-2012, 6:55 AM
Thanks for clean clear and concise, I was seeing a bunch of panic about this. I looked at it myself, and I couldn't see any way it was going to hurt private ownership, but it does look like the kiss of death for importing foreign weapons, which is a shame.

RMP91
07-07-2012, 12:27 PM
Thanks for clean clear and concise, I was seeing a bunch of panic about this. I looked at it myself, and I couldn't see any way it was going to hurt private ownership, but it does look like the kiss of death for importing foreign weapons, which is a shame.

The Russians oppose the treaty, and if I recall, ALL nations involved in the treaty must agree unanimously in order for it to be finalized.

I, at this point, do not believe that mil-surp imports will be impacted too much. Sure the exporters will have to jump through a couple of extra hoops, but they'll reach us in due time.

OleCuss
07-07-2012, 1:13 PM
Yup! The treaty was required to be passed by consensus. Unless that has changed, it doesn't sound very likely that a consensus will be reached and the treaty will thus fail.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-07-2012, 5:31 PM
Couple of items from the Russian media point of view.


Russian News - "Russian Analysts Skeptical About Arms Trade Treaty"

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120703/174382218.html



Voice of Russia Radio interviews a German Government Assistant Minister

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_07/Global-arms-trade-treaty-better-than-nothing/


I get the idea that the world's biggest arms traders have no interest in seeing that trade restricted.

ojisan
07-07-2012, 6:21 PM
However, since Obama took office, according to the NSSF, firearms and ammunition exports were down nearly 30% in 2010, and down another 57% from the 2010 levels in 2011.
It seems everything is being classified as "Military Equipment" these days so it cannot be exported.
For example, my Kits are classifed as Category 1 Military Equipment (rifles, shotguns, handguns, machine guns) so I cannot export them.
There was another thread here at CG a few days ago that mentioned Dept of State / ITAR / DDTC was going to loosen the restrictions in a couple weeks from now.
Many items are to be re-classified as Sporting Goods so hopefully this will help.
(Military products are controlled by the Dept of Defense and are very hard to export. Sporting Goods are controlled by the Dept of Commerce that will help everyone do some business).

Mulay El Raisuli
07-08-2012, 1:49 PM
Thanks.


The Raisuli

RMP91
07-08-2012, 2:01 PM
any update on this?

CaliforniaLiberal
07-08-2012, 2:49 PM
any update on this?


They opened the negotiations last Monday, 7-2, the first post in this thread was from a bunch of news reports published Thursday and Friday. I think they take weekends off. Check back this Monday (tomorrow) or Tuesday.

Why don't all of you CalGunners do some Google searches or however you like to find stuff online and post up what you find? Make this a group effort.

I started off with "Arms Trade Treaty" or "UN Arms Trade Treaty."

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

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

RMP91
07-08-2012, 2:55 PM
They opened the negotiations last Monday, 7-2, the first post in this thread was from a bunch of news reports published Thursday and Friday. I think they take weekends off. Check back this Monday (tomorrow) or Tuesday.

Why don't all of you CalGunners do some Google searches or however you like to find stuff online and post up what you find? Make this a group effort.

I started off with "Arms Trade Treaty" or "UN Arms Trade Treaty."

http://www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/

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

Will do.

I would have just Googled it to save myself the headache(s), but all I get is paranoid FUD, no facts.

We know that the ATT isn't (underlined, bolded and italicized for emphasis) a "flat-out" ban on domestic/private ownership or possession of firearms.

The only real question here is how it will affect mil-surp/foreign imports into the United States?

Anchors
07-08-2012, 3:29 PM
:thumbsup:
Thanks for posting that!
Tagged for later review.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-08-2012, 5:20 PM
Will do.

I would have just Googled it to save myself the headache(s), but all I get is paranoid FUD, no facts.

We know that the ATT isn't (underlined, bolded and italicized for emphasis) a "flat-out" ban on domestic/private ownership or possession of firearms.

The only real question here is how it will affect mil-surp/foreign imports into the United States?


Right now the ATT isn't anything except a formless mass of conflicting interests, proposals and arguments. There's a bunch of countries that benefit from manufacturing, exporting or importing arms of all sorts. They are at the negotiations to make sure no one comes to an agreement that violates their interests.

There are also a bunch of idealistic anti-gun organizations that pretty much would like to ban all conventional weapons everywhere and end all the wars and killing and save mankind from itself. And perhaps especially - end private ownership of firearms.

It's my opinion that the idealists don't have a chance against Billion dollar corporate profits and the dozens of dictators that need to pay those corporations to import weapons to maintain their dictatorial power.

The US is the big dog at the table and has by far the largest share of the arms trade market, more then the next five largest arms trading countries combined. That's a lot of interests and profits to protect. The political climate in the US is such that any US politician trying to pass an international treaty that limits US citizens 2nd Amendment rights would be committing political suicide - before or after the Presidential election.

I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

And, as we all know, the US Constitution requires a 2/3 vote by the Senate to ratify a Treaty, even if the President has signed it. That's 67 Senators. My guess is that there aren't more than about 40 Senators who might vote to ratify.

Stay tuned, it could be an interesting couple of weeks.

RMP91
07-08-2012, 5:22 PM
Right now the ATT isn't anything except a formless mass of conflicting interests, proposals and arguments. There's a bunch of countries that benefit from manufacturing, exporting or importing arms of all sorts. They are at the negotiations to make sure no one comes to an agreement that violates their interests.

There are also a bunch of idealistic anti-gun organizations that pretty much would like to ban all conventional weapons everywhere and end all the wars and killing and save mankind from itself. And perhaps especially - end private ownership of firearms.

It's my opinion that the idealists don't have a chance against Billion dollar corporate profits and the dozens of dictators that need to pay those corporations to import weapons to maintain their dictatorial power.

The US is the big dog at the table and has by far the largest share of the arms trade market, more then the next five largest arms trading countries combined. That's a lot of interests and profits to protect. The political climate in the US is such that any US politician trying to pass an international treaty that limits US citizens 2nd Amendment rights would be committing political suicide - before or after the Presidential election.

I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

And, as we all know, the US Constitution requires a 2/3 vote by the Senate to ratify a Treaty, even if the President has signed it. That's 67 Senators. My guess is that there aren't more than about 40 Senators who might vote to ratify.

Stay tuned, it could be an interesting couple of weeks.

Spending an entire month on pins and needles and sleepless nights is not fun... :(

JAGACIDA
07-08-2012, 5:55 PM
However, since Obama took office, according to the NSSF, firearms and ammunition exports were down nearly 30% in 2010, and down another 57% from the 2010 levels in 2011.
It seems everything is being classified as "Military Equipment" these days so it cannot be exported.
For example, my Kits are classifed as Category 1 Military Equipment (rifles, shotguns, handguns, machine guns) so I cannot export them.
There was another thread here at CG a few days ago that mentioned Dept of State / ITAR / DDTC was going to loosen the restrictions in a couple weeks from now.
Many items are to be re-classified as Sporting Goods so hopefully this will help.
(Military products are controlled by the Dept of Defense and are very hard to export. Sporting Goods are controlled by the Dept of Commerce that will help everyone do some business).

What firearms and what ammo?

sholling
07-08-2012, 6:00 PM
I wouldn't take too much comfort from administration promises to protect the 2nd Amendment. These are the same people that ran with the 90% lie and F&F. I'd pretty much count on the final draft requiring national registration and tracking and the administration making "not gonna happen go back to sleep" noises and then win or lose signing it right after the November election.

The sheeple brigade believe any promise that the administration makes but that just means they'll sleep though getting screwed.

Demonicspire
07-08-2012, 7:10 PM
I wouldn't take too much comfort from administration promises to protect the 2nd Amendment. These are the same people that ran with the 90% lie and F&F. I'd pretty much count on the final draft requiring national registration and tracking and the administration making "not gonna happen go back to sleep" noises and then win or lose signing it right after the November election.

The sheeple brigade believe any promise that the administration makes but that just means they'll sleep though getting screwed.

Yeah, but isn't it Raskolnikov-ian arrogance to assume you're any less deluded than the average person? We all suffer from our own delusions, and nothing is helped by denigrating your fellow man. Yes, governments always seek to acquire more power, that much is inevitable, and why the responsible citizen has a responsibility to combat this consistently, but the paranoia is unseemly.

I'm always amused when people are worried about the government being too effective. Look at schools, foreign wars, the DMV, and the post office.

"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency" Eugene McCarthy

sholling
07-08-2012, 8:16 PM
Yeah, but isn't it Raskolnikov-ian arrogance to assume you're any less deluded than the average person?
Not arrogance - experience and the sense to look at their history with open eyes. Hillary has been a fanatical anti forever and Obama also has a long record of being a fanatical anti. Hillary and Obama did their best to push the 90% myth to further their anti 2nd Amendment agenda and when that lie was exposed ran with Fast & Furious with the same goal in mind yet the sheeple say trust Hillary and Obama when they promise to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. :rolleyes:

We all suffer from our own delusions, and nothing is helped by denigrating your fellow man.
Speak for yourself. The efforts of some to label calls for vigilance the stuff of "tinfoil hats" is right at the top of either delusional or just ready to surrender.

SilverTauron
07-08-2012, 9:15 PM
I wouldn't take too much comfort from administration promises to protect the 2nd Amendment. These are the same people that ran with the 90% lie and F&F. I'd pretty much count on the final draft requiring national registration and tracking and the administration making "not gonna happen go back to sleep" noises and then win or lose signing it right after the November election.

The sheeple brigade believe any promise that the administration makes but that just means they'll sleep though getting screwed.

This treaty will not be signed in its current form, if only for the observed truth that money talks and BS walks. Arms trade isn't just confined to private companies like Beretta and Sig selling their wares in America, but its a political play for allied nations to share arms too-including countries and organizations the US has supported with less than stellar PR ratings.

Think about our supplying the Mujaheddin in the 1970s, or arming the Kurds after the first Gulf War and god knows what other covert ops are running right now. Being signatories to the ATT opens up the US Government to legal action by the UN for illegal arms supplies as it would not only criminalize transfer of arms by us lowly peons, but also supplies of weapons to allies like Israel in addition to whatever black operations we run that get exposed.

The ATT is one treaty which both citizen and government bureaucrat are hurt by , although for very different practical reasons.

sholling
07-08-2012, 9:26 PM
This treaty will not be signed in its current form, if only for the observed truth that money talks and BS walks. Arms trade isn't just confined to private companies like Beretta and Sig selling their wares in America, but its a political play for allied nations to share arms too-including countries and organizations the US has supported with less than stellar PR ratings.

Think about our supplying the Mujaheddin in the 1970s, or arming the Kurds after the first Gulf War and god knows what other covert ops are running right now. Being signatories to the ATT opens up the US Government to legal action by the UN for illegal arms supplies as it would not only criminalize transfer of arms by us lowly peons, but also supplies of weapons to allies like Israel in addition to whatever black operations we run that get exposed.

The ATT is one treaty which both citizen and government bureaucrat are hurt by , although for very different practical reasons.
I don't think our current secretary of state or POTUS care about the handcuffs that the international side of the treaty puts on the CIA or covert opps in general or the damage to Israel. In fact I think they might see it as a plus, or at worst acceptable collateral damage.

Kappy
07-08-2012, 10:08 PM
Thanks for the write-up. I posted it on another forum! Well... a link here.

brassburnz
07-08-2012, 10:41 PM
One of my gun buddies on Facebook sent this to me.

XZeJpXLsVCI

tiki
07-09-2012, 5:21 AM
Sorry, dupe.

Sutcliffe
07-09-2012, 9:06 AM
The UN arms treaty seems so pointless. It seems like it's there to make some socialist countries happy.

The UN only has the power to enrich/protect their own criminal enterprises.

j411701
07-09-2012, 10:07 AM
Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

Skidmark
07-09-2012, 10:46 AM
Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

That editorial is over a year old.

stilly
07-09-2012, 11:41 AM
There was already a movie made about what happens afterwards. This is only bad news if you are a terrorist apparently...

RPBX47zSktc

forgiven
07-09-2012, 3:17 PM
Obama and Hillary are pushing hard for this treaty. And for the pro-Obama people on this board which always seems to amaze me; Are you bummed out at the loss of all those M1 Garands and carbines from Korea that your guy banned from importation? Go ahead and make my day, re-elect the fool!

j411701
07-09-2012, 3:58 PM
That editorial is over a year old.

oops!

Winchester 73
07-09-2012, 4:50 PM
Obama and Hillary are pushing hard for this treaty. And for the pro-Obama people on this board which always seems to amaze me; Are you bummed out at the loss of all those M1 Garands and carbines from Korea that your guy banned from importation? Go ahead and make my day, re-elect the fool!

I'm perturbed over those M1's. They may never see US soil again unless it's a US scrap yard. How a firearms enthusiast could vote for Obama as CC and Hillary as SOT is beyond my comprehension. I know white guilt is strong in California. I just hope most enthusiast got that out of their systems last time around.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-09-2012, 5:44 PM
The Heritage Foundation does a good job, not crazy shouting like some of the Pro-Gun organizations. This article is more scholarly than a news summary and very long.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/the-un-arms-trade-treatys-criteria-for-transfers-pose-problems-for-the-us


Here's the Heritage Foundation ATT News Page, check back every day.

http://blog.heritage.org/tag/arms-trade-treaty-conference/



An African News Media point of view, a little long but lots of good info. Different point of view.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201207091951.html

"....But since 2001, voluntary reporting to the UNRCA by African states has "declined from 17 states reporting in 2002 to four in 2010. Most reports by African states in fact indicate 'nil' conventional arms transfers," the report said.
Ben Coetzee, a co-author of the report and a senior ISS researcher, told IRIN African states had concerns about national security issues relating to the proposed treaty, because if military inventories were open and transparent for all to view "it would not take a brain surgeon to figure out what your defensive capabilities are."...."

"....Ammunition controls are seen as a particularly pertinent issue, as although small arms have a shelf life of many years, ammunition is a disposable item needing constant replenishment, but "politically" SAS's McDonald said "it may be a bridge to far" and has its detractors, including the USA, Iran, Egypt, Algeria and Venezuela...."

"....Coetzee said without ammunition guns become "expensive doorstops", but while the USA probably had the administrative capability to monitor ammunition exports, other countries did not, and he did not expect at this stage that the monitoring of ammunition would be included in the treaty.
He said drawing up the treaty was a delicate balancing act, as "you don't want to settle for an agreement of the lowest common denominator," but if you included ammunition the issue of compliance could undermine ATT. "There is a risk of non-compliance [related to ammunition controls] and if you don't have compliance, it [the proposed ATT] is not worth the paper it is printed on."...."



New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/opinion/a-treaty-on-conventional-arms.html

"....To be effective, any treaty should be legally binding and cover a broad range of weapons, including ammunition. Governments should be required to regulate the international sale and transfer of these weapons, perform risk assessments before authorizing a sale, and track the use of the arms. The treaty should bar governments from selling arms to any states under a United Nations arms embargo and when there are human rights concerns.
Not surprisingly, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan are balking at the human rights criteria. They are also resisting the ammunition provision, as is the United States, which says it is impractical because ammunition is difficult to track....."



Here's the NRA-ILA

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/un-arms-trade-treaty-negotiations-underway.aspx..."

"....While the New Zealand delegate stated that, "The task is not to regulate state's internal matters, such as conditions of domestic sales of arms or national systems of gun control or registration," the delegate from Mexico took the opposite tack, saying individuals' rights (i.e., the Second Amendment) are not an excuse for "products traded without controls." This statement continued Mexico's efforts to blame its drug cartel problem on American guns. The Mexican delegate then went on to say specifically that civilian firearms needed to be included in the ATT....."



http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/09/nra-takes-aim-at-weapons-treaty

"....The United States, the world's top importer and exporter of conventional weapons, already has a comprehensive tracking and export control system. "We're simply bringing other countries up to our standards," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "This treaty, in all likelihood, will not require the United States to do anything more than it is already doing."
But the American gun lobby says the ATT represents a threat to the Second Amendment.

"Depending on the scope of this treaty, it could impact gun registration requirements in the United States, it could enact a ban on commonly owned firearms, it could require tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and it could create a global gun control bureaucracy within the U.N.," says Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs at the National Rifle Association. Arulanandam says the NRA will lobby the Senate to reject ratification if the president signs the treaty....."



Christian Science Monitor - not very pro-gun I'm afraid...

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0709/Time-to-curb-the-illicit-global-arms-trade

"...At a minimum, the new treaty should require states to withhold approval for the international transfer of arms in contravention of UN embargoes or when there is a substantial risk the items will be used to commit serious violations of human rights. Despite its strong, pro-human rights rhetoric, the Obama administration has not yet endorsed such a formula...."



Here's an anti-war, pro-treaty view. Thinks it might be tough to get it passed.

http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2012/07/09/why-the-world-needs-an-arms-treaty/


"....When the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon opened the conference which runs from July 2 to July 27, he termed the absence of a global treaty on the arms trade “a disgrace” and urged delegates to work for a pact with “real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict , repression and armed violence.”

This was an ambitious task, he said, but achievable. Perhaps. We’ll know by the end of July whether the vast majority of the 193 nations in the U.N. who have spoken out in favor of a treaty mean what they say.

The obstacles on the way to throttling the flow of unregulated weapons are as formidable...."



More about what could be in the final ATT. Nightmarish, worst case possible stuff.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/09/the-hidden-costs-of-the-arms-trade-treaty/#axzz20BBFAR8G



http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/un-watch-iran-elected-to-un-arms-trade-treaty-post/2012/07/09/

Iran was elected to a top post on the UN Arms Trade Treaty conference, UN Watch revealed on Sunday. The Geneva-based human rights group is calling on UN chief Ban Ki-moon, who addressed the conference on the same day, to condemn the selection of the Tehran regime.

“Right after a UN Security Council report found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is now murdering thousands of its own people, it defies logic, morality and common sense for the UN to now elect this same regime to a global post regulating the transfer of guns and bombs,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group based in Geneva.

centralcoastguns
07-10-2012, 1:23 AM
Hello,

Just got an email from the nra about this , but i not sure how to insert a link...

Mulay El Raisuli
07-10-2012, 5:12 AM
“Right after a UN Security Council report found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria, which is now murdering thousands of its own people, it defies logic, morality and common sense for the UN to now elect this same regime to a global post regulating the transfer of guns and bombs,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group based in Geneva.


Which is kind of the definition of the UN, isn't it?


The Raisuli

advocatusdiaboli
07-10-2012, 8:05 AM
Which is kind of the definition of the UN, isn't it?


The Raisuli

The concept of the UN is that if one can assemble a critical mass of sovereign states with sufficiently conflicting self interests you can create an inert substance not on the periodic table of elements. QED.

OleCuss
07-10-2012, 9:07 AM
My impression of the UN is that it is primarily about thievery from their own countries and from the US.

There must be good reasons to remain a part of the UN and to host it, but I can't think of any that seem sufficient to me.

BlackTydeTactical
07-10-2012, 9:11 AM
Tagged

RMP91
07-10-2012, 12:50 PM
I vote to merge all the UN ATT threads into this one.

Spirit 1
07-10-2012, 1:48 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015


U.S.reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

ON WEDNESDAY OBAMA TOOK THE FIRST MAJOR STEP TO IN A PLAN TO BAN ALL CITIZENS FROM OWNING FIREARMS IN THE UNITED STATES!

The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress.

Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation [in the United States] that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment.

This is not a joke nor a false warning. As sure as government health care will be forced on us by the Obama administration through whatever means necessary, so will gun control.

Please forward this message to others who may be concerned about the direction in which our country is headed.

We are being led like a lamb to the slaughter by a Socialist Dictatorship.

See also:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/5/the-un-is-coming-for-your-guns/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

In view of the recent ObamaCare decision it's easy to see how the Supreme Court would vote to protect our Constitutional Freedoms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. They obviously view all American public documents of any kind as open to their interpretation and none other.

abishai
07-10-2012, 1:50 PM
We all know the intent of this. It is to gradually circumvent the Constitution. Regardless of Reid v. Covert, our President's unchallenged unilateral fiat governance (to put it lightly) shouldn't give us any confidence that they won't hesitate to use the ATF via "regulations" to enforce UN treaties.

They have made their intent clear: "find a new sport" (see part 4 below). Disclaimer: Might want to monitor your blood pressure as her smuggness oozes through your screen ... I warned you.

NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk)
NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZfM)
NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRtI8&feature=relmfu)
NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ1w&feature=relmfu)

What kind of mayhem (http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/atf-agents-point-gun-at-8-year-old/) do they think they're protecting us from (http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/infowars-shop_2217_28777915)?

RMP91
07-10-2012, 1:58 PM
We all know the intent of this. It is to gradually circumvent the Constitution. Regardless of Reid v. Covert, our President's unchallenged unilateral fiat governance (to put it lightly) shouldn't give us any confidence that they won't hesitate to use the ATF via "regulations" to enforce UN treaties.

They have made their intent clear: "find a new sport" (see part 4 below). Disclaimer: Might want to monitor your blood pressure as her smuggness oozes through your screen ... I warned you.

NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmg_zMuQEDk)
NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WwLz9hBZfM)
NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD1YmYuRtI8&feature=relmfu)
NRA: Great UN Gun Debate (Part 4) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ1w&feature=relmfu)

What kind of mayhem (http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/atf-agents-point-gun-at-8-year-old/) do they think they're protecting us from (http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/infowars-shop_2217_28777915)?

Stop the :fud:

The UN doesn't have the balls/manpower to go and collect every single privately owned firearm on this planet.

They're digging their own graves if they try, it's We the People who are truly in power!


That being said, there's no chance in hell we're ratifying it, it needs 67 votes, and more than 40 senators have already stated they will not vote to ratify.

wheels
07-10-2012, 7:29 PM
An interview with someone in the room during the discussions. Raises some good points.

M6R_eoy8bHQ

titleist16
07-10-2012, 7:43 PM
Well I guess I will just sell my guns and take up a "real" sport like badminton, HAHAHA!

sholling
07-10-2012, 7:59 PM
Stop the :fud:

The UN doesn't have the balls/manpower to go and collect every single privately owned firearm on this planet.
Use your head before calling "FUD". The UN doesn't have to collect privately owned arms. Each member nation is responsible for compliance within their own borders. In other words it's not a blue helmet coming to your door - it's the United States BATF backed by local SWAT coming to your door - the same people that will cart you off to prison for many-many years if you have not complied when told to surrender your collection. But even before that happens your guns aren't going to be of much use if it's illegal to sell you ammo and reloading supplies.

mosinnagantm9130
07-10-2012, 8:06 PM
I'm perturbed over those M1's. They may never see US soil again unless it's a US scrap yard. How a firearms enthusiast could vote for Obama as CC and Hillary as SOT is beyond my comprehension. I know white guilt is strong in California. I just hope most enthusiast got that out of their systems last time around.

Yes they are, the Garands were cleared to enter a while ago.

RMP91
07-10-2012, 8:07 PM
Use your head. The UN doesn't have to collect privately owned arms. Each member nation is responsible for compliance within their own borders. In other words it's not a blue helmet coming to your door - it's the United States BATF backed by local SWAT coming to your door - the same people that will cart you off to prison for many-many years if you have not complied when told to surrender your collection. But even before that happens your guns aren't going to be of much use if it's illegal to sell you ammo and reloading supplies.

With respect I do not believe our own LEOs, not even the ATF (shocker!) will carry out orders from the UN to violate the 2nd Amendment and go door to door confiscating firearms. I do believe that all LEOs (and for that matter, our military) swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

The Constitution > Anything that comes out of the UN (unless ratified by the Senate)


Stay vigilant about this, yes, but don't freak out about it.

There's next to no chance (read, no possibility whatsoever) that it'll ever come to the point that we'll be either turning in our guns to foreign soldiers or shooting it out with our own local Law Enforcement/National Guard units (some of whom happen to be friends/loved ones/family).

There's millions upon millions of firearms in the United States alone (and many more are being made/imported as I type this), they simply do not have the resources (manpower/money/public opinion) to carry out the scenario(s) that you describe.

RMP91
07-10-2012, 8:13 PM
Yes they are, the Garands were cleared to enter a while ago.

The Garands were OK'ed but not the M1 Carbines? What do they have against Inlands?

Is it the "evil" detachable magazine?

sholling
07-10-2012, 9:04 PM
With respect I do not believe our own LEOs, not even the ATF (shocker!) will carry out orders from the UN to violate the 2nd Amendment and go door to door confiscating firearms. I do believe that all LEOs (and for that matter, our military) swore an oath to defend the Constitution.
You live in a dream world then. Perhaps you've never heard of a LEO violating the constitution :rolleyes: but it happens all the time. And maybe you've never heard of a LEO arresting a citizen for firearms but it happens all the time - it's why this site exits. If given the choice of keeping a job and collecting a pension or getting fired 99% will happily go door to door collecting arms if that's what it takes to keep their jobs.

The Constitution > Anything that comes out of the UN (unless ratified by the Senate)
The current administration doesn't seem to recognize congressional oversight or the need for senate approval before taking action.

Stay vigilant about this, yes, but don't freak out about it.
Then why the "FUD" claim? We have to stay right on top of this or it will slip through.

There's next to no chance (read, no possibility whatsoever) that it'll ever come to the point that we'll be either turning in our guns to foreign soldiers
I've explained why that's unnecessary. BATF and local law will deal with it.

or shooting it out with our own local Law Enforcement/National Guard units (some of whom happen to be friends/loved ones/family).
Their are plenty of resources to collect arms. A few nut cases may shoot it out and die but most people are law abiding and may grumble but will turn in their guns and whats left are just mop up. Besides without ammo guns are pretty useless.

esnyderr
07-11-2012, 7:52 AM
Front page Foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/

Mulay El Raisuli
07-11-2012, 7:58 AM
The concept of the UN is that if one can assemble a critical mass of sovereign states with sufficiently conflicting self interests you can create an inert substance not on the periodic table of elements. QED.


LOL! I stand corrected.


The Raisuli

Quser.619
07-11-2012, 12:34 PM
No the real power behind this is that China can now demand that the US not sell arms to Taiwan, a non-UN entity or that any UN recognized country can legally demand that the US not sell arms to Israel. This is about preventing the US from arming weaker nations, regardless of whether or not it is passed by our Senate.

Limiting the import/export of arms or ammo to/from US citizens would be the icing on the cake. Once this is International Law, it opens the door to US firearm manufacturers having to face International Courts

CaliforniaLiberal
07-11-2012, 5:38 PM
Heritage Foundation Analyst Speaks to U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Conference

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/11/heritage-analyst-speaks-to-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-conference/

"...On Wednesday morning(7-11-12), nongovernmental organizations made presentations to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference..."

"....Supporters of the ATT argue that we need it to raise national standards on the import, export, and transfer of arms. But if any nation wishes to raise its standards, it is free to do so now. The fact is that many U.N. member states have neither the desire nor the ability to raise their standards. A treaty will not compel or enable them to do so...."

Also, the Heritage Foundation will have regular reports on their website: http://blog.heritage.org/tag/arms-trade-treaty-conference/



The Hill - NRA Draws Red Line on UN Arms Treaty

If you only read one of these articles, read this one.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/237401-nra-draws-red-line-on-civilian-weapons-in-un-arms-treaty


Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the powerful lobby group, said 58 senators have pledged to oppose the treaty if it covers civilian weapons, fearing an infringement of America’s gun rights.

“I am here to announce NRA's strong opposition to anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense. No foreign influence has jurisdiction over the freedoms our Founding Fathers guaranteed to us,” LaPierre said at the UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference

Proponents of the treaty say the NRA’s concerns are unfounded, and argue excluding civilian weapons would gut the effort to keep deadly arms out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes.

Advocates say the treaty would bring much of the world in line with U.S. standards without affecting the rules that govern domestic sales. And they say gun enthusiasts are wrong to worry about their Second Amendment rights, since the Constitution trumps international law.

On Tuesday, the State Department's assistant secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation informed the UN that the administration would oppose efforts to include ammunition in the scope of the treaty unless it hears regulatory proposals that are both “practical and effective.”

“Ammunition is a fundamentally different commodity than everything else we have discussed including within the scope of an [Arms Trade Treaty],” said Thomas Countryman. “It is fungible, consumable, reloadable, and cannot be marked in any practical way that would permit it to be tracked or traced. Any practical proposal for ammunition would need to consider the significant burdens associated with licensing, authorizations, and recordkeeping for ammunition that is produced and transferred in the billions of rounds per year.”



"Arms Trade Treaty, Second Amendment Compatible"

And here's the point of view of an African Missionary who hates all the nasty African wars, having been shot at. "

http://global.christianpost.com/news/arms-trade-treaty-second-amendment-compatible-78065/

"....The Arms Trade Treaty, currently being negotiated in New York, would regulate the international sale of weapons. It would require other countries to enact laws similar to those the United States already enforces against arms transfers to terrorists, criminal gangs and regimes that violate human rights.

Nothing in the Arms Trade Treaty would interfere with domestic gun sales or ownership. In fact, theUN resolution establishing the framework for the treaty negotiations explicitly recognizes "the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory."....



Alan Gottlieb at the CCRKBA Website: http://sm1.netatlantic.com/track?t=v&eas=1&mid=539002&msgid=467906&did=408518&edid=408518&sn=16837775&eid=davew@liberty.seanet.com&eeid=davew@liberty.seanet.com&uid=davew@liberty.seanet.com&rid=209430&erid=209430&fl=0&mvid=0&extra=&&&2100&eu=10501&&&#



NRA Website with a video of Wayne's speech at the ATT today (7-11-12.

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/donate.asp?CampaignID=un_gunban&ek=Y2GB7877

And a handy NRA donation form.


Talk Radio News Service

http://www.talkradionews.com/newscommentary/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-gun-lobby-conservative-groups-weight-in.html

UN Arms Treaty: Gun Lobby, Conservative Group Weigh In
By Elianna Mintz|7/11/2012 5:28 PM
"An American conservative think tank says an arms trade treaty being discussed at the United Nations this month would be inefficient, unrealistic and could could ultimately legitimize the rights of dictatorial regimes to buy and sell arms.
International delegates at UN headquarters in New York will be negotiating a potential Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which would regulate international weapons transfers and aim to curb the flow of weapons to human rights abusers.
While the treaty has already received strong statements of support from African nations, much of Latin American and many European states, conservative organizations and pressure groups in the US like the Heritage Foundation and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have been vocal opponents of a possible deal. In particular, both groups have opposed efforts to include the regulation of international small arms and ammunition purchases into the text."



Bloomberg Business Week

Looks like a nest of Anti-Gun views. Still some good information and well worth reading anyway.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-11/time-for-the-u-dot-s-dot-to-get-behind-a-global-arms-treaty

"As good American patriots celebrated the Fourth of July by blowing stuff up, international diplomats were gathering in New York for month-long treaty negotiations over a sector of the world economy that generates about $55 billion in exports each year: the arms trade. A strong and comprehensive treaty would benefit America’s national security—yet when it comes to regulating the global trade in weapons, America is shooting itself in the foot. State Department negotiators are taking positions that will weaken the final treaty, allowing festering security challenges, from Syria to the Congo, to get worse."



Amnesty International

http://livewire.amnesty.org/2012/07/11/effective-arms-trade-treaty-its-all-in-the-scope/

"...Iran for example, in its statement, said the Arms Trade Treaty should not cover small arms, ammunition, missiles, weapons technology and weapons parts and components.

The US continues to argue against ammunition being included in the ATT and Egypt told delegates that if the Treaty was to help save lives, small arms – the category of weapons that kills most people – should be left out.

Obviously if such views prevail, we’ll have an arms trade treaty that’s very light on the actual weapons part...."



Red State website, against the UN and Obama

http://www.redstate.com/runnamuck/2012/07/11/un-arms-trade-treaty-fast-and-furious-redux/

UN Arms Trade Treaty - Fast and Furious Redux?

"....As I read it, the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which is supported by the Obama Administration, would limit the ability of Americans to buy and keep firearms.

Proponents of the international treaty claim that such a treaty which would regulate trade in conventional guns would keep civilians around the world safer. (History hasn’t borne this theory out often or ever, nevertheless, the proponents of this treaty are very official may be smarter than we are. Yeah. And Germany was a nice place to raise a little Jewish family back in 1939.)...."



A US State Department transcript of US envoy Countryman's statement to the UN on ammunition

U.S. Mission to the United Nations: Statement at the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty Formal Meeting on Treaty Scope.
by Thomas Countryman

http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/07/11/u-s-envoy-at-u-n-conference-on-arms-trade-treaty/

"....Throughout the lead-up to this Conference, the United States has made clear that ammunition should not be included within the scope of the ATT. This position should not come as a surprise. It is what we have articulated in discussions about the UN International Tracing Instrument and the UN Program of Action..."



The Hill - Obama Administration: UN Arms Trade Treaty Shouldn't Regulate Ammunition

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/236969-us-says-un-arms-trade-treaty-shouldnt-cover-ammunition

"....on Tuesday a State Department official told the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that proposals to cover ammunition would cost a fortune and yet do “little or nothing to achieve the goals” of the treaty.

“Ammunition is a fundamentally different commodity than everything else we have discussed including within the scope of an ATT,” said Thomas Countryman, the assistant secretary of the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation at the State Department.

“It is fungible, consumable, reloadable, and cannot be marked in any practical way that would permit it to be tracked or traced. Any practical proposal for ammunition would need to consider the significant burdens associated with licensing, authorizations, and recordkeeping for ammunition that is produced and transferred in the billions of rounds per year," he added. "Because each State imports small arms and light weapons ammunition, these burdens would need to be assumed by each State at significant administrative and financial costs.”

Countryman added that the United States has asked over the past year for proposals showing how ammunition could be regulated in a way that would be both “practical and effective,” but has received “no substantive responses.”....."

jrock
07-12-2012, 7:12 AM
can someone please post the link to sign the petition against this.
dickmorris.com has it but i cant do it w\my phone.

j. bolton: regarding US constitution.
"if ratified, the supremecy clause would overrule 2nd amendment".
another ex.(sorry if dup info),..
since un doesnt see taiwan as a country, US could not send arms there.

someone plz post\repost petition link!

CaliforniaLiberal
07-12-2012, 7:56 AM
Here you go....


http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/

"Dear Friend,

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

The ATT will set up a global body, which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.

Please sign the petition below and include your name and address so we can send it to your Congressman and Senators...."

Mulay El Raisuli
07-12-2012, 9:20 AM
No the real power behind this is that China can now demand that the US not sell arms to Taiwan, a non-UN entity or that any UN recognized country can legally demand that the US not sell arms to Israel. This is about preventing the US from arming weaker nations, regardless of whether or not it is passed by our Senate.


This could indeed the biggest reason.


Limiting the import/export of arms or ammo to/from US citizens would be the icing on the cake. Once this is International Law, it opens the door to US firearm manufacturers having to face international Courts


Which rates (to the antis) as a read good secondary effect.

Bu I must wonder about the inclusion of Iran & other butcher states. They LIKE selling/giving arms to murderous regimes/groups. Surely, they're not going to allow any meaningful impediment to pass. And since a veto by any participant kills the thing, isn't it likely to be DOA anyway?


The Raisuli

tabrisnet
07-12-2012, 9:53 AM
I find this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause to be... odd.

It suggests that all of the listed types of laws are equal. HUH? It only is stating that all federal laws trump state law. It does not state that treaties are equal to the constitution, nor specifically that they trump regular [federal] legislative laws.

The case that seems most relevant, Missouri v. Holland, does not claim that either. The case is an unfortunate abuse against the 10th Amendment, but the 10th Amendment does not provide enumerated rights.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-12-2012, 1:22 PM
Actually the entire thing is shot through with inaccuracies and real stretchers.


"Dear Friend,

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

*Anyone who thinks this is going to be ready for signing in two weeks is crazy. They haven't even started to talk about actual treaty language yet.

Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

*All the world knows that there are countries and NGOs who want to outlaw personal possession of firearms. The US has made clear repeatedly that this is a non-starter. The US Senate would just love to have the chance to vote against ratification and throw it out the window.

The ATT will set up a global body,

*Another point which many countries have already made clear they will not agree to.

which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries.

*Most countries already regulate both possession and the importation and exportation of firearms. Many countries obtain rich profits exporting all kinds of weapons and are not interested in any controls beyond what they already have.

Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

*The US is one of the few that do not already regulate, register and inventory guns in private hands. Many countries already have bans on private gun ownership except with few and expensive exceptions.

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms.

*This right here is the biggest whopper of the whole piece. Completely untrue. The US has signed thousands of treaties (mostly with Native Americans) and not one of them have the power of a constitutional amendment.

We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.

*If a final agreement is ever reached on a treaty it will be a poor pitiable weak thing and won't much matter who signs or doesn't. Even the faintest ghost of a treaty will be laughed out of the US Senate.

Please sign the petition below and include your name and address so we can send it to your Congressman and Senators...."

I find this interpretation of the Supremacy Clause to be... odd.

It suggests that all of the listed types of laws are equal. HUH? It only is stating that all federal laws trump state law. It does not state that treaties are equal to the constitution, nor specifically that they trump regular [federal] legislative laws.

The case that seems most relevant, [I]Missouri v. Holland, does not claim that either. The case is an unfortunate abuse against the 10th Amendment, but the 10th Amendment does not provide enumerated rights.

BuckleNose
07-12-2012, 3:07 PM
Ladies & Gentlemen

Today I went to New York to testify before the United Nations to stop the Arms Trade Treaty...a treaty that could ban every rifle, pistol and shotgun you own...a treaty that could turn our God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms into a U.N.-regulated privilege...

...A treaty that has the full support of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who are eager to COOPERATE with the U.N.

With the stroke of a pen, Obama invited Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and the world's worst tyrants and dictators to rewrite our Constitution and lay waste to the Second Amendment.

After the U.N. delayed my testimony and tried to deny me a chance to speak out on behalf of gun owners like you...I stood up to those tyrants and said there will be NO COMPROMISE. American gun owners will never surrender our Second Amendment freedom...period!

But my words fell on deaf ears. Thanks to the Obama administration, this treaty is marching forward, and I need your help to stop it.
First, take a moment right now to sign your Declaration of Independence from the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty today. This declaration demands that your Senators defend freedom and block this dangerous treaty when it reaches the United States Senate.
With Obama's unilateral support for this freedom-destroying treaty, we must rely on the United States Senate to defend our Constitution and refuse to ratify this international gun ban. And your signature on this declaration is the most powerful tool in our arsenal!
Second, after you sign your Declaration, help NRA rally every American gun owner against this U.N. assault on our freedom by making an emergency contribution of $10, $15, $20, $30 or more today.
I want to make sure law-abiding Americans like you will never be forced to kneel before the altar of the U.N. and surrender your constitutional rights!

I want to make sure every American knows that Barack Obama has willingly surrendered our sovereignty and our birthright that generations of patriots have died defending.

With your immediate contribution of $10, $15, $20 or $30, NRA will blanket the country with ads and mailings that expose the truth that Obama is working with the U.N. to attack our Second Amendment freedoms.

And NRA is taking this fight head-on...at U.N. headquarters in New York...on Capitol Hill...and in all 50 states!!!

But we can only win if millions of American gun owners unite and add their voices to this fight. So please, sign your Declaration of Independence and make an urgent gift of $10, $15, $20, $30 or the most generous amount you can afford to NRA now.

Time is running out. The U.N. will vote on this treaty on July 27! Please stand with me and draw your own personal line in the sand against the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty before it's too late. Thank you.

In Liberty,

Wayne LaPierre
P.S. Please forward this call to arms to every family member, friend, co-worker, and gun owner that you know!


National Rifle Association * 11250 Waples Mill Road * Fairfax, VA 22030

tabrisnet
07-12-2012, 4:44 PM
so, when can I expect the NRA blimp to pass over my apartment to carpetbomb my neighborhood?

will we have a constitutional right to keep & bear blimps?

CaliforniaLiberal
07-12-2012, 5:57 PM
The Arms Trade Treaty: Where We Are at In Negotiations So far - From the UN sponsored media

http://www.undispatch.com/the-arms-trade-treaty-where-we-are-at-in-negotiations-so-far

"One week into the much anticipated Arms Trade Treaty talks and no side is particularly pleased with how things are going thus far. While that’s to be expected in a set of negotiations as contentious as these, the breadth of upset parties is rather impressive. Putting aside the gripes of the Vatican and Palestine from early last week, the discontent seems to be spreading among various groups both inside and outside of the walls of the UN....."

"....It’s too early at this juncture to tell precisely what the completed text will look like. However, as the approval process is consensus-based, you can be sure that there will be several participants less than pleased with the outcome."



Africa: Negotiating an Arms Trade Treaty - State Security Versus Human Security - African News Media
http://allafrica.com/stories/201207121054.html

"....All governments participating in this conference hold at least some of the above objectives as vital to their interests in the negotiation of an ATT. Yet by prioritising "state security" over "human security" or the profits of the arms industry over the lives and livelihoods of human beings, these governments in effect undermine all of these objectives. The only way to prevent arms from being employed as instruments of foreign occupation or as illicit goods, for example, is to ensure that humanitarian interests are at the forefront of the treaty's principles, objectives, and criteria, and to match them with a robust scope and rigorous implementation mechanisms...."



An arms treaty on the block - San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/An-arms-treaty-on-the-block-3700639.php

"....But don't think this treaty is a slam-dunk. Gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association bristle at any mention of weapons controls and see the treaty as a threat to domestic gun ownership. It's nothing of the sort, and State Department negotiators have made Second Amendment guarantees an absolute "red line" in talks. Two-thirds of the Senate will have to agree to the treaty as well, a high threshold in partisan Washington, where the hyperbolic NRA holds sway. Supreme Court rulings also bar a foreign treaty from undercutting constitutional rights...."


Heritage Foundation ATT Site

http://blog.heritage.org/tag/arms-trade-treaty-conference/


NRA-ILA News Site

http://nraila.org/news-issues.aspx

Skidmark
07-12-2012, 6:12 PM
Nothing like a UN thread to bring out the Tinfoil hatters. :TFH:

Thanks for the updates, CalLib.

Grayling14
07-13-2012, 2:32 AM
I am by no means a tinfoil-hatter, but I know the difference between piss and rain when it is running down my back.
Objective observation indicates that Obama and Hillary have little respect for our Constitution, and NO respect for the 2nd Amendment, regarless of what they may say publically.
Look at their voting records. They are both extremely anti-2nd Amendment. Additionally, they have both repeatedly made comments that they unequivocally believe that private citizens should not be allowed to own firearms.

Also, the U.N. ATT, if ratified, will invariably succumb to 'mission creep', and will eventually regulate, limit, and ban, all private gun ownership.

If we believe their placating rhetoric, we will be counted among the fools.

tabrisnet
07-13-2012, 10:02 AM
Huh? in order for the treaty to be ratified, it must be in a final form w/ no changes to the text. Thus it cannot increase in scope after ratification.

Further, the process of extending and amending for a treaty is... non-trivial, and the amended treaty is in fact a new separate treaty to be ratified.

Grayling14
07-13-2012, 5:29 PM
Huh? in order for the treaty to be ratified, it must be in a final form w/ no changes to the text. Thus it cannot increase in scope after ratification.

Further, the process of extending and amending for a treaty is... non-trivial, and the amended treaty is in fact a new separate treaty to be ratified.

True enough, and you make a good point.
Let me try to more effectively articulate my thoughts.

The ambiguities that will most certainly be present within the wording of the treaty is where our peril lies. Any linguistic sleight-of-hand that leaves the intent and scope of the treaty open to interpretation by U.N. bureaucrats at a later date will be the back door to superseding the 2nd A. I expect that this is their intent.

Iran, China, Egypt, Nigeria, Belarus, Japan, Mexico and Australia are being included in the treaty negotiations. All of these countries are controlled by either totalitarian, or notoriously anti-gun, governments. None of them have any interest in protecting our Constitutional rights, and in reality it is probably just the opposite.

If the above assumptions are correct, and we are eventually faced with the 'Devil in the details', or the lack thereof, I sincerely doubt that our current POTUS or SoS would speak a single word of dissent.
I have little doubt that one of Obama's ultimate goals is the elimination of the 2nd A.
This is one of the precepts that he spoke of, but did not detail, when he said that he wants to fundamentally transform America.

tabrisnet
07-13-2012, 8:16 PM
I would not be concerned over the interpretations of the UN... The first consideration is that the UN, as an organization, might as well not exist. It exists solely at the discretion of the member states, and as of this point in time does not have its own army, a civil court, nor a criminal court that has jurisdiction over ordinary citizens.

I might be concerned over the interpretations made by the US government[s]. Otoh, most treaties are not 'self executing' and thus require not only the ratification by the senate, but also additional laws that implement the treaty's mandate.

If the treaty places obligation [or restriction] upon citizens [for the purpose of possesion, trade, or use], and not merely on the export of arms, I find it improbable that it could be self-executing. After all, there is a difference btwn obligating or restricting action of the government[s] (as applied to trade or interaction with other nation-states) and obligating or restricting the action of citizens operating solely within its own borders.

I can hardly claim there is no reason for concern, but I do not believe that the barrier [to this action] is so low as to allow all of this doom&gloom to come to pass.

Further, the Suckretary of State (actually a joke I learnt first from my home state of Michigan, in re the fact that what CA places within the purview of the DMV, is in MI performed by the Secretary of State) should have little to say about domestic affairs, at least in an official capacity.

offdutyalot
07-13-2012, 9:32 PM
Here you go....


http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/

"Dear Friend,

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

The ATT will set up a global body, which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.

Please sign the petition below and include your name and address so we can send it to your Congressman and Senators...."

Signed and sent......ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!:mad:

BuckleNose
07-14-2012, 8:57 AM
You should know which Senators and Representatives are on record as being opposed to the UN-GATT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ2FUBao4Ww&feature=results_main

BuckleNose
07-14-2012, 9:02 AM
How about those that are missing? Get on the bull horn and let those missing know you want them to support this protest letter to reject the GATT.

tabrisnet
07-14-2012, 11:59 AM
Here you go....


http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/

"Dear Friend,

On July 27th, the nations of the world are scheduled to meet in New York to sign a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to prevent the proliferation of small arms throughout the world, it is, in fact, a backdoor way to legislate gun control in the United States and effectively repeal our Second Amendment.

The ATT will set up a global body, which will require all nations to regulate firearms so that they can prevent their exportation to other countries. Inevitably, this will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. A gun ban is not far away.

The ATT, under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, would have the power of a constitutional amendment and would, effectively, repeal the Second Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear arms. We must fight to stop the US from signing the treaty and, if we fail, block Senate ratification.

Please sign the petition below and include your name and address so we can send it to your Congressman and Senators...."


Signed and sent......ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!:mad:


Let's certainly not allow a little hyperbole & outright lies to get in the way of our righteous indignation. Can't you tell that the text of this alert is full of lies and inaccuracies ?

Yes, it should be well worth to block this... but the allegations about the content & implications of the treaty are full of mierda de toro, least of all without a link to or a copy of the text.

Wrangler John
07-14-2012, 1:24 PM
We all know that the Obama administration has little if any respect for the Constitution. How far does that go? Read this little ditty regarding the EPA adopting new low sulfur diesel fuel regulations for ships required by an amendment to the 2010 agreement know as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL). The article is listed on the Drudge Report as of Saturday, July 14.

http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-sues-block-low-sulfur-fuel-requirement-ships-025940611.html

The treaty has been signed by Hillary Clinton, but not ratified by a vote of the senate. This is no roadblock to the EPA which went ahead and adopted the regulation effective August 1. So it may go with the UN Arms Treaty. I suspect that Obama will issue an executive order adopting it without regard to Congressional action. At that point he may order BATFE to draw up rules in conformance with the treaty, working whatever mischief he can. Oh, and that's not tinfoil hat brigade fodder, aluminum foil follies maybe. From there nullifying his actions will require a great deal of political and legal work.

BuckleNose
07-14-2012, 1:37 PM
hyperbole? lies? inaccuracies? mierda de toro?

What?

Here is what 130 currently seated Representatives have to say regarding their concerns on the ATT:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99259777/ATT-Letter

also,

Here is the letter from 50 Senators addressing their concerns to the Administration on the same issue:

http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/unarmstreatymoran.pdf

Keep thinking!


Let's certainly not allow a little hyperbole & outright lies to get in the way of our righteous indignation. Can't you tell that the text of this alert is full of lies and inaccuracies ?

Yes, it should be well worth to block this... but the allegations about the content & implications of the treaty are full of mierda de toro, least of all without a link to or a copy of the text.

tabrisnet
07-14-2012, 8:56 PM
We all know that the Obama administration has little if any respect for the Constitution. How far does that go? Read this little ditty regarding the EPA adopting new low sulfur diesel fuel regulations for ships required by an amendment to the 2010 agreement know as the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL). The article is listed on the Drudge Report as of Saturday, July 14.

http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-sues-block-low-sulfur-fuel-requirement-ships-025940611.html

The treaty has been signed by Hillary Clinton, but not ratified by a vote of the senate. This is no roadblock to the EPA which went ahead and adopted the regulation effective August 1. So it may go with the UN Arms Treaty. I suspect that Obama will issue an executive order adopting it without regard to Congressional action. At that point he may order BATFE to draw up rules in conformance with the treaty, working whatever mischief he can. Oh, and that's not tinfoil hat brigade fodder, aluminum foil follies maybe. From there nullifying his actions will require a great deal of political and legal work.




I'd say that that this is the most relevant post yet.

Of course, there is yet the problem of enumerated rights... But, half the fun is that treaties most trivially enjoin the government signatories, and not the citizens. And the EPA is the government. Thus to take this somewhere useful, we need to find a legal path by which the BATFE might do such bad things.

The good news is that the DoJ normally cannot make policy that creates new crimes. The BATFE, being part of the DoJ, should find it difficult.

Specifically, the legislature must empower an agency to so do.

tabrisnet
07-14-2012, 9:12 PM
hyperbole? lies? inaccuracies? mierda de toro?

What?

Here is what 130 currently seated Representatives have to say regarding their concerns on the ATT:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99259777/ATT-Letter



They are saying that there is danger here... and I am not saying there is no danger, but rather saying that the path to this doom&gloom scenario is much more complicated than merely this treaty being signed.

Furthermore, there is no specific reference in the above link to the 2A, only to "constitutional rights" which may be a LOT of things. Further there are actual legitimate complaints here about economic effects, which I _did_ say there are effects on trade.

But most of the complaint in this thread is on specific dangers to citizens rights, which are a far cry from government rights (for which, btw, the government generally shouldn't have any. only responsibilities and powers).


also,

Here is the letter from 50 Senators addressing their concerns to the Administration on the same issue:

http://www.nraila.org/media/pdfs/unarmstreatymoran.pdf

Keep thinking!

Further, my complaint of hyperbole is the apparent claim that a treaty somehow naturally overrules the Constitution... whereas the Constitution has no such statement in it.

The statement of hyperbole and bull***** was specifically in the context of the below quote, which I had made a few posts earlier in the thread.


I would not be concerned over the interpretations of the UN... The first consideration is that the UN, as an organization, might as well not exist. It exists solely at the discretion of the member states, and as of this point in time does not have its own army, a civil court, nor a criminal court that has jurisdiction over ordinary citizens.

I might be concerned over the interpretations made by the US government[s]. Otoh, most treaties are not 'self executing' and thus require not only the ratification by the senate, but also additional laws that implement the treaty's mandate.

If the treaty places obligation [or restriction] upon citizens [for the purpose of possesion, trade, or use], and not merely on the export of arms, I find it improbable that it could be self-executing. After all, there is a difference btwn obligating or restricting action of the government[s] (as applied to trade or interaction with other nation-states) and obligating or restricting the action of citizens operating solely within its own borders.

I can hardly claim there is no reason for concern, but I do not believe that the barrier [to this action] is so low as to allow all of this doom&gloom to come to pass.

Further, the Suckretary of State (actually a joke I learnt first from my home state of Michigan, in re the fact that what CA places within the purview of the DMV, is in MI performed by the Secretary of State) should have little to say about domestic affairs, at least in an official capacity.

tabrisnet
07-14-2012, 9:16 PM
As a further thought, I find it most annoying that in our society and political system, the only method by which to come to a reasonable middle-ground is by taking the most extreme position in opposition, and praying for a reasonable compromise.

A compromise is most easily characterised as the outcome where both sides are equally unhappy with the result.

BuckleNose
07-14-2012, 9:18 PM
Thoughtful. I can appreciate your thinking.

However this is a treaty. If the Administration signed it and the United Nations adopted it, Obama would have to put it before the Senate for a vote before it could be ratified and be enforceable in this country. In that event 2/3 of the Senate would need to approve.

I hope the Senate has the courage to 'do the right thing'.

I'd say that that this is the most relevant post yet.

Of course, there is yet the problem of enumerated rights... But, half the fun is that treaties most trivially enjoin the government signatories, and not the citizens. And the EPA is the government. Thus to take this somewhere useful, we need to find a legal path by which the BATFE might do such bad things.

The good news is that the DoJ normally cannot make policy that creates new crimes. The BATFE, being part of the DoJ, should find it difficult.

Specifically, the legislature must empower an agency to so do.

RMP91
07-14-2012, 9:47 PM
So Obama's willing to go as far as Executive Order to bypass Senate ratification?

... God help us all.

PatriotnMore
07-15-2012, 7:04 AM
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-second-amendment/


For much of the past two weeks, I’ve been attending the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty conference in New York and blogging on the craziness of Turtle Bay. A number of comments on my blogs—and many external commentators—have raised the question of whether the ATT is, pure and simple, a “gun grab” treaty.
Let’s start with three basic points:


No external power, and certainly not the U.N., can disarm U.S. citizens or deprive us of our Second Amendment rights by force. If there is a Second Amendment problem, it comes from the actions of U.S. authorities.
The U.N. and many of its member states are hostile to the private ownership of firearms.
The U.S. is exceptional: It is one of the few nations that has a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment.

Thus, the default U.N. tendency—partly out of malevolence, partly out of ignorance—is to act in ways contrary to the Second Amendment, and the fundamental job of the U.S. at the U.N. is to try to stop bad things from happening. The alternative of completely quitting the entire U.N. is appealing but unwise, because the U.N. would keep doing things that would affect the U.S. even if we were not in it.
The U.N. is aware of the political dangers of appearing to stomp openly on the Second Amendment. It uses code words; it runs closed meetings—a veteran of the process tells me that meetings were normally open until the National Rifle Association began showing up at them—and, above all, it plays a long game. A big problem with talking about the ATT as a “gun grab” treaty is that the U.N. works by taking slices: when it comes to the U.N., being outraged by one development is no substitute for focusing on how the slices pile up over time.
I don’t give much too much credit to the U.S. for stating (http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/) as a red line that it will uphold the Second Amendment, because that raises the question of what relevant activities are (as the State Department puts it in its red line) “permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.” Simply backing the Second Amendment is good, but it is better to spell out—as Senator Jerry Moran (R–KS) did at Heritage recently (http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/06/arms-trade-treaty)—exactly what rights and activities you believe the Second Amendment protects. Only in that way does a promise to uphold the Second Amendment carry the full weight that it deserves.
So what are the domestic concerns posed by the ATT? Four are important.


Transfer requirements. First, there are specific textual requirements. The most recent draft text states, for example, that the ATT will apply to “all international transfers of conventional arms” but then goes on to define “international transfers” as “the transfer of title or control over the conventional arms.”

Does this mean that any transfers, including domestic ones, count as international and are thus subject to the treaty’s provisions? There are similar concerns related (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/effects-of-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-on-the-us) to the potential reporting requirements of the treaty and thus to the possible creation of a U.N.-based gun registry. If it is to be true to its published red lines, the U.S. cannot accept any of this.


International business. Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/the-un-arms-trade-treatys-criteria-for-transfers-pose-problems-for-the-us). The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.
Further review of the rules. This is not the end of the process. The ATT will be elaborated at review conferences, where the U.S. goal is to develop “best practices” for its implementation. Similarly, if President Obama were to sign the ATT but not submit it to the Senate for ratification, the U.S. would hold itself obligated to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the ATT.
Constitutional interpretation. Finally, the ATT is part of a process that will inspire judges and legal theorists who believe that the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted in light of transnational norms. This is the most important problem of all, though it is broader than the ATT.

Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs” are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.” On the other hand, the ATT should raise concerns beyond the Second Amendment. Representative Mike Kelly (R–PA) recently led (http://kelly.house.gov/press-release/rep-kelly-voices-concerns-un-arms-trade-treaty-att) 130 of his colleagues in expressing a range of concerns about the ATT to the Administration.
It makes sense to balance legitimate expressions of concern for the Second Amendment with concerns on economic, foreign policy, and national security grounds. There’s enough to dislike about the ATT to keep everyone busy.

Grayling14
07-15-2012, 3:09 PM
Thoughtful. I can appreciate your thinking.

However this is a treaty. If the Administration signed it and the United Nations adopted it, Obama would have to put it before the Senate for a vote before it could be ratified and be enforceable in this country. In that event 2/3 of the Senate would need to approve.

Alaska sues to block low-sulfur fuel requirement for ships
http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-sues-block-low-sulfur-fuel-requirement-ships-025940611.html

"Domestic enforcement of the amendment is not permitted without ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate . . ."

" . . . The rule is scheduled to be enforced starting on August 1 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard for ships operating within 200 miles of the shores of southeastern and south-central Alaska, according to the lawsuit."

"The treaty amendment at issue is a 2010 agreement under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL. The United States has signed onto MARPOL, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accepted the 2010 amendment."

"The lawsuit faults the EPA, the Department of Homeland Security and others for using a marine treaty amendment as the basis for the new federal regulations without waiting for ratification of that amendment by the U.S. Senate."


According to the above article, the Senate has not ratified the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships agreement, but enforcement has proceeded nonetheless.


tabrisnet
The good news is that the DoJ normally cannot make policy that creates new crimes. The BATFE, being part of the DoJ, should find it difficult.

Specifically, the legislature must empower an agency to so do.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the article effectively stated that no legislative action had been taken, only executive action. It seems that the EPA, DHS and the USCG found little difficulty, why should the BATFE find it any more difficult?

RMP91
So Obama's willing to go as far as Executive Order to bypass Senate ratification?

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that President Obama has shown a willingness to bypass Congress if they do not act according to his wishes.

tabrisnet
07-15-2012, 3:33 PM
Difficulty because of enumerated rights.

As to EPA, they have the [legislatively granted] power to make policy with the force of law, within the scope of pollution, environmental quality, etc. The BATFE does not have the same wide scope of policymaking. Sure, they had the ability to make rulings on the import of shotguns [but were then enjoined by Congress from enforcing it], but they do not have the authority to create policy for possession of small arms.

That would require an act of Congress, that would then be able to pass Heller.

tabrisnet
07-15-2012, 3:45 PM
I am having the feeling that people are jumping into this thread w/o reading the rest of it first. I am, however, attempting to not continually restate my analysis for every counterpoint.

The EPA is nothing like the DoJ. The DoJ is not in the business of making law, they are in the business of enforcing law. The fact that the EPA can make law is like the FTC and FDA, they are specifically empowered by Congress to make policy that clarifies and specifies the intent of Congress. That is, there are inclusions by reference, in the acts of Congress, to policies made (or requested to be made) by certain Cabinet level agencies.

These policy-making powers are specifically delegated and limited by Congress. They cannot exceed the scope of what Congress allowed, nor can they exceed the powers of the Executive or Legislative branches. The Constitution, limits the powers of Congress & the Executive Branch, especially in the case of enumerated rights & powers.

This treaty will almost certainly not be self-executing.

Librarian
07-15-2012, 4:55 PM
The EPA low-sulfur thing is off topic for the thread and the forum.

tabrisnet
07-15-2012, 6:29 PM
Here's a thought... it wouldn't affect possession, but would cover transfers: can the BATFE do something interesting in re this treaty by regulation on FFL holders?

McGlock
07-15-2012, 8:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uru-NXj31uI&feature=plcp

Mulay El Raisuli
07-16-2012, 6:24 AM
Can treaties be UN-signed? That is, presuming that The Chosen One loses the election, can the next POTUS repudiate a previously signed treaty?


The Raisuli

Librarian
07-16-2012, 11:26 AM
Can treaties be UN-signed? That is, presuming that The Chosen One loses the election, can the next POTUS repudiate a previously signed treaty?


The Raisuli

Depends on the treaty language for the legality of that. Canada repudiated the Kyoto protocol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol).

Who would enforce any sanction against a country that withdrew? What was Stalin's line? 'How many divisions has the Pope?'

Mulay El Raisuli
07-17-2012, 5:30 AM
Depends on the treaty language for the legality of that. Canada repudiated the Kyoto protocol (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol).

Who would enforce any sanction against a country that withdrew? What was Stalin's line? 'How many divisions has the Pope?'


Stalin was wrong, which means that while no one could march against us, such things still must be handled delicately.


The Raisuli

offdutyalot
07-17-2012, 6:51 AM
Sorry if this generic email response has been posted. This is a response to an email to Diane Feinstein with my concerns about this treaty:

Dear Michael:



Thank you for writing to express your concerns about possible ratification of an international treaty aimed at stemming the proliferation of small arms and light weapons worldwide. I appreciate hearing your views on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.



I understand you have serious concerns about this proposed treaty. The purpose of the ongoing negotiations is to draft a legally binding treaty on the export, import, and international transfer on conventional weapons. It will not address the personal ownership of guns or gun owners' rights. The actual drafting of the treaty will take place in 2012.



Please know that I strongly support this process. According to Amnesty International, more than 500,000 people per year are killed with conventional arms, and almost 60% of documented human rights violations have involved the use of small arms and light weapons. Further, the Small Arms Survey estimates that there are more than 875 million firearms in the world today, roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. These numbers help to underscore the fact that a majority of the deaths in conflicts worldwide are small arms-related.



While we do not necessarily agree on this particular issue, please know that your views are important to me, and I will keep them in mind should the Senate discuss ratification of such a treaty.




Again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to write on matters of importance to you. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.



Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator


Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, Feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list. Click here to sign up. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.

To say my blood presure went up a few points this morning is an understatement......Whoever doesn't vote; PLEASE DO!

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 7:26 AM
It is pretty much useless to write to the California Senators.

We who would even visit a forum like this have virtually no points of commonality with our rulers.

AfghanVetOrcutt
07-17-2012, 8:27 AM
This is a response to an email to Diane Feinstein with my concerns about this treaty:

Dear Michael:

...the Small Arms Survey estimates that there are more than 875 million firearms in the world today, roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. These numbers help to underscore the fact that a majority of the deaths in conflicts worldwide are small arms-related...

The real problem is the other 6 people don't have a firearm in which to defend themselves from the truly depraved that do.

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 9:07 AM
Good point!

If only 1 in 7 had access to clean drinking water, the perceived tragedy would be that 6 out of 7 do not.

It should be the same. 6 out of 7 do not have the means and training to defend themselves. This is unfortunate.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-17-2012, 10:04 AM
SAAMI / The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute - The US organization that sets specifications for safe ammunition. A cool breath of sanity at the UN. Text of their Speech Delivered at the ATT

http://www.saami.org/who_we_are/UN/UN071112_ConfArmsTradeTreaty_speech.pdf


"...The true success of this conference requires a focus on the big picture. Guns are tools, and like any tool can be used for great good and great harm. We all know the tragedy caused by those few who choose the path of violence, regardless of the tools they use. But you must also remember that hundreds of millions of citizens regularly use firearms for the greater good. Regulated hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance with healthy ecosystems and is a major contributor to economic stability—and thereby promotes peace—in rural areas and developing countries. Target shooting has its roots in the very beginnings of civilization. This is an Olympic year, and shooting events attract the third largest number of participating nations of any sport at the Olympic Games. And people in every nation in this room—including the UN itself—use firearms to protect the law abiding and enforce peace. A well-meaning treaty that does not support the positive use of firearms is doomed to cause more harm than good. A simple step in the right direction is to focus on the fully automatic weapons of war and exclude sporting firearms...."



Independant Voter News

http://ivn.us/2012/07/16/un-conference-on-arms-trade-treaty-underway/

The intent is clearly to globally regulate all firearms and ammunition. There is some support in the US for such an arms trade agreement as well. The prior administration had made it clear that the US was not going to participate in the negotiations nor be a signatory, but under the current administration, there is now US participation.



Heritage Foundation - Can the U.N. Grab Americans’ Guns?

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/13/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-and-the-second-amendment/

"... Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs” are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.” On the other hand, the ATT should raise concerns beyond the Second Amendment. ..."



The Lancet - UN Debates Global Arms Trade Treaty

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61160-X/fulltext?rss=yes

".....As things stand, the US$60 billion a year arms industry is governed by a patchwork of national and regional rulings. The USA is by far the world's biggest arms exporter, responsible for around 40% of global trade; other countries with sizeable industries include China, France, Germany, Russia, and the UK. According to Oxfam USA, there are only 52 countries that regulate their arms brokers, and most of these do not maintain criminal sanctions for illegal sales. The idea of an Arms Trade Treaty was first mooted by a group of Nobel Peace Prize winners in the 1990s. The UK lent vocal support, and in 2006 the UN passed a resolution paving the way for a treaty. In 2009, Barack Obama's administration offered its backing, leaving Zimbabwe the only country to vote against the General Assembly Resolution that scheduled this year's conference.

The draft treaty requires governments to scrutinise sales of conventional weapons—tanks, for example, military vehicles, missiles, or firearms—on a case-by-case basis. If there is a “substantial risk” that the weapons might be used to violate human rights or humanitarian law, end up in the hands of terrorists or organised criminals, impair poverty-reduction and sustainable development, or foment local or regional instability, then the sale cannot go ahead. The treaty also covers ammunition, a likely sticking point in the negotiations—the USA would prefer for ammunition to be excluded. The treaty explicitly supports the right of countries to acquire weapons for self-defence...."



UN News Centere - UN agencies urge nations to consider humanitarian concerns in arms treaty negotiations

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42476&Cr=arms+trade&Cr1=

“It is an opportunity for States to take decisive action to address the adverse human rights, humanitarian and development consequences of the poorly regulated trade in arms and the corresponding widespread availability and misuse of weapons,” Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Catherine Bragg told the meeting on Thursday, as she delivered a statement on behalf of ten UN agencies and actors involved in humanitarian action.



The Hill - Defense hawks take cautious approach with NRA, UN arms trade treaty

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/237699-defense-hawks-take-cautious-approach-with-nra-and-un-arms-treaty

Defense hawks in the Senate are in a holding pattern on a United Nations arms treaty that’s drawing strong opposition from the National Rifle Association over Second Amendment concerns.

Several influential Republican defense hawks said Thursday they have to study the issue further before signing on to oppose it, despite a loud pressure campaign from the NRA.




The New American - UN Arms Treaty would impact 2nd Amendment Rights

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/12060-un-arms-treaty-would-impact-second-amendment-rights

The United Nations is working on a treaty that would impact Second Amendment rights in the United States and reveal the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments, placing the Second Amendment under international scrutiny.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty is supported by organizations such as Amnesty International USA because of its purported potential for controlling unregulated weapons. But critics of the pact recognize the overreach it would create.
Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, warned that it would eventually lead to the complete eradication of Second Amendment rights. Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” he declared, adding, “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty.”




Reuters -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/04/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE86216O20120704

"....One of the reasons this month's negotiations are taking place is that the United States, the world's biggest arms trader accounting for over 40 percent of global conventional arms transfers, reversed U.S. policy on the issue after Barack Obama became president and decided in 2009 to support a treaty.

However, U.S. officials say Washington insisted in February on having the ability to "veto a weak treaty" during this month's talks, if necessary. It also seeks to protect U.S. domestic rights to bear arms - a sensitive issue in the United States...."




Huffington Post - Does this writer sound stoned to you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lin-evola/arms-trade-treaty-193-voi_b_1671923.html

"....Young people are coming up to hear all of this information at once. Polarity in issues always arise before change. As with chemistry of any sort, the opposites attract at the moment of conception of the new.

Responsibility, freedom, intelligence, stability, prosperity are all interconnected. We have the choice but we know it is a lesser choice -- to throw the baby out with the bath water.

What is written, if adopted by consensus, will be legally binding on the Member States. In order to make real change, what is written must be written as what is said.

For example:

Within the United States:

No ban on civilian firearms would be agreed to, nor interference with state domestic regulation of firearms. U.S. will control their legal firearm trade. Record keeping and firearms tracking will not be made public for other agencies.

Noted, the ATT will increase international bureaucracy. Understood that civilian weapons are different than military helicopters, for example, and have to be dealt with as such. These distinctions are noted as nuances in a potentially complicated agreement, and several objections have been raised to a treaty that restricts trade in firearms that can be lawfully owned for individual defense, sporting or collecting purposes.

What is continually being raised is to keep the criteria section clear: address the illicit arms issue and to safeguard human beings from suffering at the hand of the criminal element. In doing this, however, we must remember there is indeed a lawful and legitimate trade in arms. The entire trade should not be vilified for the evils present in today's world, of which there are many...."




Amnesty International - Fact vs Fiction: Arms Trade Treaty and Gun Ownership in the US

http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/fact-vs-fiction-arms-trade-treaty-and-gun-ownership-in-the-us/?msource=W1207EDATT1B

Will the ATT stop the sale of handguns in the US?

NO it will not.

The UN General Assembly resolution starting the process on the Arms Trade Treaty explicitly states that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”

No ATT can therefore infringe on that exclusive right. To that end, all the papers circulated by the Chair of the UN ATT (Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina) process clearly reference that right.

Further, Ambassador Moritán has stated that the definitive goal of the small arms treaty “is to try to have common standards to be applied by all countries when they export or import weapons.”

Furthermore, about the ATT, the State Department has said:

“There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.”

DFF
07-17-2012, 10:21 AM
Who knows if it'll make a difference, but anything is better than nothing.

Here's a petition regarding stopping the ATT.. http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/7175/gun-control/

Mike357
07-17-2012, 10:59 AM
I wrote this to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and this was the response, kinda cool I think:

Dear Michael :

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about possible ratification of an international treaty aimed at stemming the proliferation of small arms and light weapons worldwide. I appreciate hearing your views on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.



I understand you have serious concerns about this proposed treaty. The purpose of the ongoing negotiations is to draft a legally binding treaty on the export, import, and international transfer on conventional weapons. It will not address the personal ownership of guns or gun owners' rights. The actual drafting of the treaty will take place in 2012.



Please know that I strongly support this process. According to Amnesty International, more than 500,000 people per year are killed with conventional arms, and almost 60% of documented human rights violations have involved the use of small arms and light weapons. Further, the Small Arms Survey estimates that there are more than 875 million firearms in the world today, roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. These numbers help to underscore the fact that a majority of the deaths in conflicts worldwide are small arms-related.



While we do not necessarily agree on this particular issue, please know that your views are important to me, and I will keep them in mind should the Senate discuss ratification of such a treaty.




Again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to write on matters of importance to you. Should you have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.


Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

CaliforniaLiberal
07-17-2012, 5:54 PM
frontpagemag.com - Obama-Backed UN Gun Control Treaty on Its Way

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/obama-backed-un-gun-control-treaty-coming-soon/

"....One such working draft of possible treaty language, dated July 14, 2012, tried to assuage the concerns of gun rights proponents, particularly in the United States, that the treaty would interfere with their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It did so by affirming in its preamble “the sovereign right of States to determine any regulation of internal transfers of arms and national ownership exclusively within their territory, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership.”
The problem is that preambles have no binding legal effect in a treaty or a contract. Thus, the disclaimer is legally meaningless. What counts are the operative provisions within the body of the document. The proposed treaty language does not clearly define its jurisdictional limitation to covering only exports and imports between and among the member states. It could be interpreted as requiring regulation and control of the domestic possession and sale of firearms if there is any chance, no matter how remote, that such firearms could be, in the words of the draft text, “diverted” to “unauthorized end users.”



Amnesty International - Arms trade: Obama urged to reject ‘human rights escape clause’

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/arms-trade-obama-urged-reject-human-rights-escape-clause-2012-07-17
"....President Obama’s officials have indicated they want the treaty to include an escape clause that would allow national security considerations to override any serious human rights concerns when deciding to supply arms.

“With the ATT negotiations entering a critical final phase, it is time for President Obama to step up and show that the US administration is serious when it comes to protecting human rights,” said Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.

“Any escape clause that overrides human rights in the ATT would send a signal that countries can carry on with business as usual. The continuing loss of civilian life in Syria is a stark reminder as to why a robust ATT in which human rights are paramount is needed. Millions of lives depend on strong human rights protections being in the final agreement.”

City Hunter
07-19-2012, 5:54 PM
How many senators are currently against this treaty? Last I remember was 57 or 58 from a report last year.

FastTimmy
07-20-2012, 10:07 AM
Hey guys, unite in action sent me a plea to help stop the UN gun grab. They offer a option to pay them to send faxes for me "I hope it's not a scam" politicians alike.

Here is the form letter in hopes that it helps.

Timmy



To: [TITLE] [FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME]
Washington, DC

RE: United Nations Arms Treaty

Dear [TITLE] [LAST NAME]:

I'm writing to ask you to REJECT ANY Anti-Gun agreements and protect the Second Amendment from the anti-gun United Nations Arms Trade Treaty and ANY "gun ban" agreement that would repeal the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

I the undersigned, as a citizen of the United States, do hereby demand that you vote "NO" on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the Second Amendment -- they were giving the people the right to defend themselves against all threats - not just petty criminals and invaders, but also the threat of an oppressive government.

The UN Arms treaty enforces impossible licensing requirements designed to keep law abiding Americans from owning guns. In addition, the Arms Trade Treaty will hijack and destroy all weapons that are classified as "unauthorized." What exactly classifies a firearm as "unauthorized" is up to the liberal gun-haters. The treaty will ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of most semi-automatic weapons - even those designed for hunting. Clinton, Obama and their anti-liberty cohorts are also calling for an INTERNATIONAL GUN REGISTRY that would pave the way to eventually disarming every American citizen.

Statistics prove that crime significantly RISES when law abiding citizens are disarmed. In Britain alone, violent crime increased dramatically after the crown disarmed her subjects. In London alone, violent crime is 10 times higher per capita that New York. The facts are clear, criminals prefer unarmed victims.

Your job, your sworn duty is to uphold the United States Constitution - that includes the Second Amendment.

There is NO middle ground - you MUST protect American's right to keep and bear arms. VOTE NO ON THE UNITED NATIONS ARMS TREATY AND ANY OTHER TREATY, LAW OR LEGISLATION THAT IMPEDES THE RIGHT OF LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZENS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP]

FastTimmy
07-20-2012, 10:09 AM
Sorry for the brief post but my battery is dieting and I wanted to make sure I got the letter up!

Timmy

Grayling14
07-20-2012, 8:01 PM
Sorry if this generic email response has been posted. This is a response to an email to Diane Feinstein with my concerns about this treaty:

[COLOR="Navy"]Dear Michael:

Thank you for writing . . .

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

I wrote to Feinstein and received the exact same form letter. A more politically correct way of telling me to F.O.

Grayling14
07-21-2012, 2:39 AM
I am having the feeling that people are jumping into this thread w/o reading the rest of it first. I am, however, attempting to not continually restate my analysis for every counterpoint.

The EPA is nothing like the DoJ. The DoJ is not in the business of making law, they are in the business of enforcing law. The fact that the EPA can make law is like the FTC and FDA, they are specifically empowered by Congress to make policy that clarifies and specifies the intent of Congress. That is, there are inclusions by reference, in the acts of Congress, to policies made (or requested to be made) by certain Cabinet level agencies.

These policy-making powers are specifically delegated and limited by Congress. They cannot exceed the scope of what Congress allowed, nor can they exceed the powers of the Executive or Legislative branches. The Constitution, limits the powers of Congress & the Executive Branch, especially in the case of enumerated rights & powers.

This treaty will almost certainly not be self-executing.


You are arguing aspects of the conventional methodologies used to pass laws, promulgate regulations and create enforcement methods. I am not debating the technicalities of authority between departments, agencies and jurisdictions, with or without relation to the Constitution. I am postulating that we are not competing on a level playing field with the anti-gunners, and that this administration is only willing to cooperate in the ATT negotiations because they seek to create, along with the U.N., a back door to undermine the 2nd Amendment. The article below addresses just one possibility.

Home Page:
http://cfif.org/v/

Article:
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/42-constitution-and-legal/1505-real-danger-of-the-uns-arms-trade-treaty-is-in-the-interpretation-not-the-text

Real Danger of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty Is in the Interpretation, Not the Text
BY*ASHTON ELLIS
THURSDAY, JULY 19 2012

Ever heard of transnational legal theory?*
If the Obama Administration gets its way, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty being negotiated in New York this month could become the kind of international legal document that transnational judges inside the United States will use to gut the Second Amendment.*

You left off this from the bottom:
© 2012 Center for Individual Freedom. All rights reserved
Please do not post whole articles - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=363956

We are still in the "one (short) paragraph and a link is low-risk." mode, despite appropriate legal action against the major risk provider. Righthaven is not the only offender…

See the stickies http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=394912

// Librarian

RJohnson
07-21-2012, 6:18 AM
I see far beyond a treaty. With the recent bloodshed in Co I see a powerful ban on all semi auto firearms coming through out the United States. Only the Military and Law Enforcement personal will have them.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-21-2012, 5:43 PM
The negotiations continue at the UN. Not going smoothly. Originally planned to finish up by this Friday the 27th of July, there has been mention of another possible session to be scheduled for this Fall. Lots of debate, not a lot of agreement. Russia, China, India and the US don't want their profitable and influential arms sales restricted. The inclusion of Ammunition is still up in the air.

******************


The World Is Vulnerable -- UN Arms Trade Treaty Talks Fail, Again, The "global gun grab" that isn't.

http://www.alternet.org/world/156347/the_world_is_vulnerable_--__un_arms_trade_treaty_talks_fail,_again/?page=entire

"...Everyone who has spent any time here knows we're lucky if we can get a time frame for debate worked out," said Robert Zuber of Global Action to Prevent War, who has 20 years experience with the UN and supports the passage of a treaty. "This idea that a UN treaty concerning international arms flows could somehow override the Constitution or the Supreme Court, this idea that it will lead to UN police marching down the streets taking people's guns away -- everyone here knows it's beyond ludicrous...."



Pima County Sheriff Candidate Terry Frederick Investigates ATT Constitution Attack

http://www.pr.com/press-release/428502

Tucson, AZ, July 20, 2012 --(PR.com)-- Former Pima County Deputy Sheriff, private investigator, and current candidate for Sheriff in Pima County, Terry Frederick, said today, "I have grown concerned about the upcoming United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty (hereafter referred to as the ATT). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has promised to sign the treaty at the United Nations on July 27th. The ATT is described by supporters as a way to minimize war between nations, but far more is hidden beneath the surface. At risk is the right of our citizens to defend themselves, something that I consider to be a human right that is protected by the second amendment in our Constitution.

"My investigative team has discovered that this treaty is part of a plan that was launched in 1961 when Under Secretary of State, Chester Bowles, ran the Department of State for the Secretary. This plan is clearly described in a shocking document titled, 'Freedom From War - The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.' This document is publicly available to read at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99517990/Freedom-From-War."



Manchin: U.N. gun ban treaty ‘craziness’

http://www.register-herald.com/local/x825330855/Manchin-U-N-gun-ban-treaty-craziness

"...Any attempt to disarm individual Americans in a yet-not-finalized United Nations Arms Trade Treaty would be “craziness” and doomed to failure on Capitol Hill, Sen. Joe Manchin vowed Thursday.

A lifelong hunter and gun owner himself, Manchin responded to mushrooming fears spread across the Internet of late that the proposed treat ultimately could erase the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms..."



US Department of State Statement on ATT

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/

KEY U.S. REDLINES

* The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

* There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

* There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

* The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

* The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

* There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

* There will be no lowering of current international standards.

* Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

* The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

* There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.



The Internationalist - Your Guns Are in Safe Hands

http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2012/07/20/your-guns-are-in-safe-hands/

"....An international arms treaty would work to stem the flow of licit and illicit arms into unstable countries and regions, and prevent such weapons from falling into the wrong hands. However, despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations...."



The New York Times - Guns and the Slog

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/guns-and-the-slog.html

"...There was a brief period of time when gun control was a popular issue, but that was before the National Rifle Association mobilized itself into one of the most powerful lobbying forces in the nation’s history. Now the N.R.A. is so feared and so successful that it’s running out of issues and has to keep inventing new ones, like the right to bear arms in airport lobbies.

The gun control advocates, who used to fight for sensible laws on universal background checks and registration, now devote most of their time to stopping states from making it legal to carry concealed weapons in a kindergarten, or to shoot someone you sort of suspect may intend to hurt you...."



Radio Interview Recording - KQED - About 50 minutes long, an interview with President of Oxfam America

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201207200900

Anchors
07-21-2012, 8:32 PM
I see far beyond a treaty. With the recent bloodshed in Co I see a powerful ban on all semi auto firearms coming through out the United States. Only the Military and Law Enforcement personal will have them.

Nope.
Supreme Court rulings and many states and citizens will be in direct conflict with that.

I'm usually a pessimistic type around here and sometimes I play devil's advocate just for thought exercise and even I'm not worried about a sweeping semi-auto ban.

We'll be okay man, just take as many new people shooting as you can and you won't have to worry about politics someday.

tabrisnet
07-21-2012, 11:29 PM
Without going into various insanity involving misinterpretations of the Supremacy Clause & other wackiness, what wrenches can we throw in the works to make this as difficult as possible to finish and ratify ?

CaliforniaLiberal
07-23-2012, 4:39 AM
Without going into various insanity involving misinterpretations of the Supremacy Clause & other wackiness, what wrenches can we throw in the works to make this as difficult as possible to finish and ratify ?


The US Senate is already primed and ready to vote down ratification of the ATT if it should ever make it that far. The ATT negotiations are not going smoothly. It may take a while for the UN to even come up with a final draft that they can vote on.

I'm thinking that throwing wrenches may not be necessary.



Heritage Foundation - Most carefully made case for why the US should not support the ATT as presently drafted. A long read, but worth it.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty's Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the US - Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/the-un-arms-trade-treatys-criteria-for-transfers-pose-problems-for-the-us

The framework on which the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), currently being negotiated, is likely to be based is clear: It will set out criteria that signatories must apply to proposed arms transfers and require them to decide whether the proposed transfer poses a risk under any of those criteria. But these criteria are likely to be ill-defined, and the ATT's "checklist" model differs fundamentally from the "guidance" model that the U.S. currently employs. Worst of all, the ATT will enumerate criteria that will be easy to expand in ways that the U.S. cannot control. If the ATT is to exist, it should be based on a commitment by willing and democratic signatories to develop effective systems of border and export control.

kimber_ss
07-23-2012, 5:02 AM
Is the UN the new world order of socialism?

nDMeDmV0ufU

CaliforniaLiberal
07-23-2012, 10:50 PM
I think it's so sweet that China wants to prevent Gifts from being regulated by the ATT.



Heritage Foundation - 5 Fundamental Flaws in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/23/5-fundamental-flaws-in-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/

"....The overwhelming majority of commentary in the United States on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has focused on the possible risks it poses to rights protected under the Second Amendment. There is nothing wrong withbeing watchful on this front, but the ATT raises broader concerns for U.S. foreign policy.
Indeed, the ATT is inherently flawed simply because of the beliefs on which it is based and the process by which it is being drafted. Here are five reasons why...."



Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - NGOs Warn Arms Trade Negotiations Behind Schedule

http://www.rferl.org/content/un-arms-trade-negotiations-behind-schedule/24654343.html

UNITED NATIONS -- Non-governmental organizations are warning that international talks on a global arms trade treaty, now in their final week at UN headquarters, are behind schedule.

Representatives of UN member states have until July 27 to agree on a treaty on conventional weapons trading, which experts estimate to be worth more than $70 billion a year.

Representatives of Control Arms and Oxfam International told journalists on July 23 that some states, including Russia, China, and Iran, are continuing to stymie negotiations.

Issues reportedly still being debated include whether ammunition and small "nonmilitary" arms will be included.

Jeff Abramson of Control Arms said Russia, China and Iran continue to resist a robust arms treaty, and that China has asked to exclude all arms labeled as "gifts" from being regulated.



TribLive News

http://triblive.com/news/2216624-74/treaty-gun-arms-owners-weapons-concerns-conference-constitutional-law-nations

"....
An international arms trade treaty being hammered out at the United Nations is giving some gun owners the jitters, even though some legal experts say those fears are unfounded.

Weekend negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty could produce a draft agreement by Monday. The talks are scheduled to conclude on Friday after four weeks.

According to draft documents, the goal of the treaty is to improve the regulation of international trade in conventional weapons through a set of new standards.

But some gun owners — as well as the National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby — are concerned that they would be forced to register their weapons with a new U.N. bureaucracy...."



AmmoLand

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/23/the-arms-trade-treaty-falling-apart/#axzz21W5jyhHi

"....With only a week left for treaty negotiations, one might surmise from the multitude of complaints of its proponents that the Treaty, as it is being drafted, is destined to fail because it is becoming too weak.

But no matter how “strong” its language, it will fail very simply because it’s a foolish idea, concocted with fantasies that cannot work...."



Talk Radio News Service

http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/07/23/arms-trade-treaty-backers-call-for-obamas-support.html

"....While a final Arms Trade Treaty agreement is expected to be announced by Friday, countries continue to disagree over several important aspects of the text.
The U.S. for instance has said it would only support the ATT if it excluded ammunition from the treaty, but countries like Mexico, France and other European states have argued international transfers of ammunition should be regulated ...."

howbobert
07-24-2012, 12:26 PM
With all this talk about the UN Arms Treaty, I was just wondering if we can get one of our pro-gun senators to draft a bill that would allow us to stop funding the UN if they try to pass a treaty that violates any part of our Constitution. Maybe even include a clause that would require them to relocate to a different country. This might be far-fetched, but it might be worth a try.

Just a thought.

tabrisnet
07-24-2012, 1:08 PM
draft, probably. Get sufficient co-sponsors & votes to pass it?

Grayling14
07-24-2012, 1:34 PM
Librarian
You left off this from the bottom:
© 2012 Center for Individual Freedom. All rights reserved
Please do not post whole articles - see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=363956

We are still in the "one (short) paragraph and a link is low-risk." mode, despite appropriate legal action against the major risk provider. Righthaven is not the only offender…

See the stickies http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=394912

// Librarian


Yes. A potentially serious oversight on my part. I apologize. I have reread the policy. It will not happen again.

Flopper
07-24-2012, 1:55 PM
With all this talk about the UN Arms Treaty, I was just wondering if we can get one of our pro-gun senators to draft a bill that would allow us to stop funding the UN if they try to pass a treaty that violates any part of our Constitution. Maybe even include a clause that would require them to relocate to a different country. This might be far-fetched, but it might be worth a try.

Just a thought.

The last thing we want is the UN leaving the US. If you think we have little influence on the UN now. . .

CaliforniaLiberal
07-24-2012, 5:49 PM
Here it is! The ATT Draft Text. Now all of those folks who have been telling us what's in the Treaty can finally read a draft and see if the stuff they made up was right. This is sure to change, lots of contentious negotiations going on. Trying to meet a Friday deadline. Who knows what's going to happen with this. Many negotiators are saying that they cannot support the Treaty unless it is stronger, while others are saying they cannot support the Treaty unless it is weaker. Wonder if negotiations might just blow up and everyone go home. Try again later? Hope thay have good air conditioning equipment.

Stay tuned this Friday

As usual the Heritage Foundation provides thoughtful, reasoned analysis.



International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights - The Text of the Draft Treaty ---->----> http://iapcar.org/?p=970

An offshoot of the Second Amendment Foundation. Sure to be a lot of good, freshly updated, eyewitness, ATT information at the GRPC ( http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=grpc ) in September.

http://iapcar.org/?p=970



Heritage Foundation - Reaction to the Latest Draft of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/reaction-to-the-latest-draft-of-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/

"....In early July, I spent two weeks at the U.N. conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The conference ends on July 27, and I’m back for this final week. The president of the U.N. conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has just released a draft treaty text. Here is a quick reaction to it...."



Heritage Foundaiton - Arms Trade Treaty: Media Need an Advanced Class on Treaties

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/24/arms-trade-treaty-media-need-an-advanced-class-on-treaties/

"...In answering media questions on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), I have found that hosts frequently state, as a matter of fact, that treaties require a two-thirds Senate majority, and if they don’t get it, they have no legal effect. Like all things, it’s not that simple. Here’s a short primer on when and how treaties can have legal effect...."



Proposed arms treaty gives too many 'loopholes': NGOs

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jHsPhM_XuY62F9NIIXo3XUgxR2qQ?docId=CNG.5d174 57c79fe26f8d26ae0f5093b62ca.ba1

UNITED NATIONS — The International Red Cross has joined opponents of a draft arms trade treaty out Tuesday that critics said contains only "ambiguities and loopholes."
Following the release of the first draft, the 193 UN members must now race to agree on a text to regulate the $70 billion a year arms trade by Friday, the deadline set by the UN General Assembly.
Civil society groups condemned the draft text for not including ammunition and allowing too much scope for arms transfers that would escape the treaty.



Idaho Press-Tribune - U.N. treaty would kill 2nd Amendment

http://www.idahopress.com/opinion/columnists/columnist_one/u-n-treaty-would-kill-nd-amendment/article_4de8532a-d520-11e1-94f6-001a4bcf887a.html

"...“Representatives from many of the world’s socialist, tyrannical and dictatorial regimes [are gathering] at the United Nations headquarters in New York for a month-long meeting, in which they’ll put the finishing touches on an international Arms Trade Treaty that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm,” warns Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action...."



Christian Broadcasting Network - UN Treaty Endangering the Right to Bear Arms

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/July/UN-Treaty-Endangering-the-Right-to-Bear-Arms/

"....The Syrian government is continuing to turn its military might on its own people, killing thousands. But many world leaders believe a set of transparent global standards regulating the international trade of arms would help curb the violence. The goal is to keep nations from selling arms to rogue states, criminals, and terrorists....."



All Africa News - Arms Trade Treaty Hanging in the Balance As Negotiations Enter Final Phase

http://allafrica.com/stories/201207240451.html

"...."There is everything to play for this week. A strong treaty is still within our grasp but there is a real risk it could slip through our fingers at the last minute. Now is the time for action. All states that have called for a strong Arms Trade Treaty for years in the past, must now deliver on their promises."
The critical focus during the final days of negotiations will be on the steps governments will be required to take before deciding whether an arms transfer should go ahead or not. A small minority of governments refuses to agree that a transfer should be prohibited if there is a substantial risk it will be used for violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.

Last Friday, a statement outlining the minimum humanitarian principles that must be included in the treaty, was supported by 74 states including Colombia, Malawi, Mexico, Norway and New Zealand and scores of Caribbean and African nations. But key players including the UK, Australia, Japan and France did not sign up...."



U.N. releases proposed Arms Trade Treaty text

http://www.examiner.com/article/examiner-exclusive-u-n-releases-proposed-arms-trade-treaty-text

"....The proposed United Nations international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is out, and it is already running into trouble as many of the tenets are apparently contrary to United States law, to say nothing of the collision they might have with the Second Amendment.
Julianne Versnel-Gottlieb with the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation reports from the U.N. headquarters in New York that the head of the U.S. delegation, Thomas Countryman, was quick to point out that provisions in the proposed treaty will run into trouble with existing law.

However, Versnel-Gottlieb notes that the proposed treaty is still getting support from the United Kingdom and the French delegation let slip that their ultimate goal is to regulate legitimately-owned “weapons.” Gun rights activists will quickly note that this has not worked too well for the British...."



Reuters - Draft U.N. arms trade treaty full of holes, activists say

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/arms-treaty-idINL2E8IO8XK20120724

"...After losing the first week of the month-long negotiations to procedural wrangling, delegations from around the world now only have three days left to work on the delayed draft text before a possible vote. The treaty must be approved unanimously, so any one country can effectively veto a deal.

But if a consensus cannot be reached, the treaty may not be doomed. Activists have said nations supporting a stronger pact could then bring a treaty to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopt it with a two-thirds majority vote.

"The text that leaves this conference must not be the text with these loopholes. It's got to be a decent text even if it goes back to the General Assembly," said Brian Wood, arms control and human rights manager at Amnesty International.

The draft treaty currently says that it would only come into effect after it has been ratified by 65 countries, which some activists say could take up to 10 years. Arms control campaigners say only 30 ratifications should be needed.

"Every major element ... has major loopholes," said Peter Herby, head of the International Committee for the Red Cross arms unit. "There is a very high risk this treaty will simply ratify the status quo, rather than changing the status quo...."

Skidmark
07-24-2012, 6:50 PM
The last thing we want is the UN leaving the US. If you think we have little influence on the UN now. . .
^^^ Someone who gets it.

And look at that... the draft text does not authorize black helicopters to come swooping through my backyard...

Thanks for the update, CL.

OleCuss
07-24-2012, 7:05 PM
The Heritage Foundation's links are particularly worthwhile.

And I don't think we need to get the U.S. out of the UN. We need to get the UN out of the US and drastically reduce our monetary and military support.

Dreaded Claymore
07-25-2012, 3:28 PM
Just read the draft of the treaty. Here are my reactions. (Remember that I am just Some Guy On The Internets, and that I don't know anything about international law.)

Immediately apparent problems:

As vague as hell. Consists primarily of generalities. A State Party could fit just about any kind of arms-related activity in here somewhere, whether to inhibit it or reinforce it.
Doesn't recognize the human right of self-defense. (We knew it'd have this problem.)
Looks insanely weak, too weak to be enforced against anyone in a way that would help prevent conflict or human rights violations.


Immediately apparent good things:

Looks insanely weak, too weak to be enforced against the United States in a way that would compel human rights violations.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-25-2012, 6:59 PM
Heritage Foundation - The Arms Trade Treaty: Just A Gateway Drug

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/25/u-n-arms-trade-treaty-as-tough-to-kill-as-a-zombie/

"....The outcome of the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is still uncertain, but one thing’s for sure: The ATT is not going to go away.
It’s obvious that there’s no consensus yet on the crucial parts of the treaty, including its scope (what kinds of weapons, items, and activities the treaty will cover) and its criteria (what standards signatories are supposed to use to assess their exports of arms). It’s not inconceivable that the conference will fall apart without a treaty.
From the U.S. point of view, the ideal outcome would be for the countries in the Non-Aligned Movement to reject the treaty, which would sink it even more effectively than a U.S. veto, but without allowing the treaty’s supporters to blame only the U.S. for its failure. What may be more likely is a disagreement among the Permanent Five members of the Security Council (U.S., U.K., France, China, and Russia), with Russia wanting a treaty allowing it to arm Syria and the U.S. wanting one that would not prevent it from arming the opposition.
But that would not be the end of the process. Now that the concept of the ATT has been invented, it cannot be uninvented. There are too many countries and too many left-wing nongovernmental organizations that want a treaty. So if this July’s conference collapses, there will sooner or later be another conference....."



The Hill - Obama under pressure to strengthen UN treaty regulating export of weapons

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/239955-obama-under-pressure-to-beef-up-un-arms-trade-treaty

"....An array of groups supporting an international arms trade treaty under negotiation at the United Nations are urging President Obama to strengthen its terms.

The world body's 193 members have until Friday to agree to a treaty regulating the export of weapons. A first draft of the treaty floated Tuesday has many advocacy groups worried, however.

Even the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which rarely raises its concerns publicly, has been unusually vocal.

“All the core provisions of this draft treaty still have major loopholes which will simply ratify the status quo, instead of setting a high international standard that will change state practices and save lives on the ground,” AFP quoted the head of the ICRC's arms unit, Peter Herby, as saying.

Key issues include the fact that the draft treaty doesn't require the regulation of ammunition, and does not appear to apply to weapons given as aid or donations....."



Foreign Policy - Arms trade treaty negotiations race toward finish line

http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/25/arms_trade_treaty_negotiations_race_toward_finish_ line

"....In New York, national delegations have been laboring for several weeks on a proposed Arms Trade Treaty. That process is now in the frantic last few days (the deadline is Friday). The latest draft has produced a mixed reaction from the governments and activists that have pushed for the treaty. Many observers have focused on what type of weaponry is included (at the insistence of the United States among others, ammunition is not covered). But the treaty's weakness runs much deeper....."



The Guardian (UK) - Draft arms trade treaty condemned, Campaigners including Oxfam say global arms trade treaty would fail even to halt shipments from Russia to Syria

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/25/arms-trade-treaty-oxfam

"....Arms control campaigners who have been urging the UN to approve the first global arms trade treaty have condemned a draft text as weak and confusing, and warn that it will not save lives.
Oxfam said that if the treaty were not toughened up before the month-long talks ended, on Friday, it could become meaningless, and would not even stop arms shipments by Moscow to Syria.

British diplomats were more optimistic, insisting the draft was a "strong basis" for what could be the first global treaty to regulate the way arms are bought and sold. But they conceded that "more work was required" in certain contentious areas, and said the UK would not compromise on some core demands....."



CNS News - UN Arms Trade Treaty Could be Amended in Future Over US Objections

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-arms-trade-treaty-could-be-amended-future-over-us-objections

".... With a Friday deadline looming, negotiators at the United Nations are circulating a draft of a global conventional arms trade treaty that critics worry will do little to constrain “bad actors,” while countries like the United States duly comply.
A glaring provision in the draft states that any country that is party to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) can propose amendments to it at any time after it enters into force. Such amendments will be taken up at a conference of signatory states, where – according to article 20/3 of the text – it “shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting.”...."



CBS News.com - UN treaty on global arms trade sparks criticism

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57479513/un-treaty-on-global-arms-trade-sparks-criticism/

"....The first draft of a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade sparked criticism Tuesday from campaigners seeking to keep illegal weapons from fighters, criminals and terrorists — and demands for changes before Friday's deadline for action.

Peter Herby of the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross said that every element in the draft has "major loopholes," and he warned that if it's adopted there's "a very high risk" the treaty would continue the status quo and allow countries to just continue doing what they're doing now or even do less....."



Fox News.com - UN arms treaty takes shape, raising alarm among gun rights advocates

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/25/un-treaty-takes-shape-and-takes-aim-at-gun-owners/

"....The arms trade treaty being hammered out by the United Nations is nearing completion, and the current draft shows it could lead to perpetual attacks on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and American foreign policy, critics say.

The document, which critics say has been framed by countries hostile to U.S. interests, allows for future amendments to be approved by just two-thirds of states showing up at an amendment conference. That means it could be agreed to by the U.S., put into effect and then changed over Washington's objections. And even if the U.S. Senate refuses to ratify it, the deal could have a huge impact on the global arms trade, where the U.S. is the biggest player.

“The talks … are now being dominated by skeptical governments including Iran, Syria and Cuba."
- Statement from Control Arms, group seeking global arms control

“This alone is grounds for rejection,” said Ted Bromund, senior research fellow with the Washington-based Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, as he pored over the text.
But even without amendments, there is plenty for the U.S. not to like in the draft, say critics. The treaty could set the stage for legal challenges to U.S. aid to allies like Israel and Taiwan, and it could also expose private information about U.S. gun owners...."



Fear and loathing the UN Small Arms Treaty

http://www.examiner.com/article/fear-and-loathing-the-un-small-arms-treaty

"....The ATT has been a work in progress for some time. There are multiple goals in the ATT including:
Reduction in the illicit trade of small arms globally especially in conflict and post conflict zones.
Disarmament or reduction in armament of illegal entities such as drug gangs, insurgents and pirates.
Creation of reliable data statistics on small arms similar to those that exist for larger weapons. This data base would be used to track the origin of weapons in conflict zones and in countries under arms embargos.
The ATT has met resistance from some individuals who fear it could potentially result in an international government taking away their guns. This fear has been perpetuated by the gun and ammunition industry and lobbying groups such as the NRA. Twitter and internet comment boards have been filled with conspiracy theories,,,,"



The Guardian (UK) - Arms trade treaty: the government must get off its backside, If the British government really cares about the arms trade treaty, it must defend its animating principles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/arms-trade-treaty-government-off-backside?newsfeed=true

"....As we enter the final days of the UN talks, there is a real risk the conference will collapse because of the intransigence of countries like Syria and Iran that have never wanted an arms trade treaty. Seventy-four countries took to the floor of the UN last Friday to issue an appeal to save the treaty. They recalled the humanitarian and development principles that we sought to put at the heart of this treaty, and warned that these principles are being lost. But the UK stood aside.
The private rationale was about "building consensus". That can be noble, but not if it involves abandoning principle. The danger is that in keeping quiet to seek an agreement, we end up with a deal so weak that it is not worth the paper it is written on. As Russia sells arms and ammunition to the Syrian government to massacre their own people, the stakes could not be higher...."

a1c
07-25-2012, 7:09 PM
Well look at that, much ado about nothing. As we've been saying over and over.

Now can we please focus on the actual threats and challenges?

CaliforniaLiberal
07-25-2012, 8:13 PM
Well look at that, much ado about nothing. As we've been saying over and over.

Now can we please focus on the actual threats and challenges?


I'm thinking that this isn't over until it's over. Stay tuned for further developments. Hopefully it will turn out really boring.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-26-2012, 6:01 PM
Work kicked my butt today, going to bed early.

Here's a Google Search for "Arms Trade Treaty", then click on the "News" button on the left side of the page.


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Arms+Trad+Treaty&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=Arms+Trade+Treaty&hl=en&client=safari&pwst=1&rls=en&prmd=imvnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=CvURUL28F47SiAKRh4Bw&ved=0CE8Q_AUoBA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=275e707b2ed9f96d&biw=1544&bih=1018


Here's a link to the Heritage Foundation that will have new stuff on the ATT. Don't see anything new yet today as I post this. Check it out and see.

http://blog.heritage.org/author/tbromund/

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 9:44 PM
The last thing we want is the UN leaving the US. If you think we have little influence on the UN now. . .

Its not that we have "little influence" its that "we the people" are not enjoying what influential decisions are being made.

Without the United States of America, the UN is (pardon the brutal term) castrated - well or at least the thumbs are missing :

http://bcb.med.usherbrooke.ca/images/hosts_country_piechart.png


The UN is the global version of Sandusky's Penn State = not only wanton sexual assault but also extortion, racketeering and many many worse things I personally bury my head in the sand towards.

:(

CDFingers
07-27-2012, 4:24 AM
For the news round up thread, from NPR:

>Treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the 100-member Senate, or 67 votes. And with pressure mounting from the gun lobby, led by the politically powerful NRA, a bipartisan letter opposing such a treaty already gained the signatures of well over 50 senators.

>Even so, mushrooming fears have spread on the Internet and on social networks lately, with some pro-gun activists even suggesting the Obama administration was capitalizing on the Colorado killings to advance its case for gun control and others portraying it as a darker plot by the U.N. to expand its reach.

>The controversy feeds into suggestions by many conservatives that Obama ultimately hopes to ban possession of firearms, even though he has stood up for protecting Second Amendment rights.

link:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=157464944

CDFingers

emcon5
07-27-2012, 8:57 AM
This is strange,

http://www.thegunmag.com/ccrkba-credits-grassroots-for-u-s-decision-to-not-sign-arms-treaty/

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today applauds the decision by the United States to not sign the proposed International Arms Trade Treaty, and CCRKBA credits grassroots action for the gun rights victory.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, who is at the United Nations in New York, said the announcement came Friday morning after a week of intense negotiations.

This is the only place I have seen this, a news search finds no other reports of the US refusing to sign.

JSolie
07-27-2012, 9:12 AM
Saw this link on twitter

http://www.examiner.com/article/fantasy-and-fraud-of-gun-control-agenda-v-strategies-that-work

Curley Red
07-27-2012, 10:26 AM
Treaty wasn't signed. You can all go back to attacking the presidents birth certificate or whatever else you think he will do to take away our gun rights which he hasn't done in all his time in office as president.

emcon5
07-27-2012, 10:32 AM
Saw this link on twitter

http://www.examiner.com/article/fantasy-and-fraud-of-gun-control-agenda-v-strategies-that-work

That is quoting the same source, Alan Gottlieb. Not that I don't believe him, but it would be nice to see confirmation from another source.

BigJ
07-27-2012, 10:32 AM
Wow I'm truly surprised. I figured he and she would sign it, but that it would die on the Congressional floor. Its fantastic news it won't get the chance.

kemikalembalance
07-27-2012, 10:52 AM
Tagged

OleCuss
07-27-2012, 11:00 AM
Treaty wasn't signed. You can all go back to attacking the presidents birth certificate or whatever else you think he will do to take away our gun rights which he hasn't done in all his time in office as president.

Intriguing. . .

I'm glad you are taking the non-antagonistic approach on this forum!

Anyway, do you know why we didn't sign the treaty?


You really should remember that there have been quite a few of us on this forum telling people to stop worrying about this treaty. It just wasn't likely to be a significant problem.

This treaty had to be negotiated to a consensus. There was no consensus so there was no treaty to sign.

Since there was no treaty to sign, it makes absolutely no sense to give Obama props for not signing a non-existent treaty.

Curley Red
07-27-2012, 12:33 PM
Anyway, do you know why we didn't sign the treaty?

Nope and neither do you or anyone else on this forum. You can all assume, but none of us know why it didn't get signed.

Since there was no treaty to sign, it makes absolutely no sense to give Obama props for not signing a non-existent treaty.

I never gave props to Obama for not signing it. I just stated that it did not get signed. Don't add words that I never said.

emcon5
07-27-2012, 2:47 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/global-army-treaty-hits-resistance-from-iran-dallying-by-us.html

LA Times posted this ~20 min ago, doesn't say anything about the US refusing to sign:

Excerpt:
Negotiators at the United Nations worked to complete a treaty to regulate the global arms trade by a Friday night deadline but faced resistance from some nations, including Iran, Syria and North Korea, and a request for more time from the United States.

The treaty aims to halt the cross-border flow of weapons and ammunition that has fueled violent conflicts around the world.

But some countries made clear their unhappiness with the restrictions in the treaty, which requires approval from all 193 United Nations members. And the Obama administration said it needed to study the text, which has gone through a series of revisions in a four-week negotiating process.

emcon5
07-27-2012, 3:14 PM
But this looks pretty conclusive:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/states-fail-reach-global-arms-trade-treaty-16874375#.UBMgcaOp1Bk

U.N. member states have failed to reach agreement on a new treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade.

Some diplomats and treaty supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the month-long negotiating conference.

Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some key loopholes by Friday's deadline for action. But the United States announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty — and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-27-2012, 6:56 PM
Looks like it's over for this round. Everyone went home and they turned out the lights. There's some mighty disappointed groups and countries out there that will try and bring this back for future rounds. Have to wait and see what happens.

Reports are that the US negotiators dug in their heels and refused to give in to pressure by the majority to make the treaty stronger and less a servant to US interests. When they asked for more time to review the latest changes it was clear that the Treaty would not make the Friday (today) deadline and that pulled the plug.

Looks like Alan Gottlieb of the SAF got a jump on the news orgs in reporting the end of negotiations. I would love to hear his report on the ATT negotiations at the Gun Rights Policy Conference this September. http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=grpc



Heritage Foundation - U.N. Negotiations on Arms Trade Treaty Near End

Written early in the day before the conference ended. A point by point discussion of the changes negotiated by the US in Tuesday's draft treaty.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/27/att-the-beginning-of-the-end-game/

"....The U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference released a second draft text late in the afternoon on Thursday. After initial reactions from states, the questions still at issue came into focus. In order of significance, the top five questions are:
1. Will the treaty be amendable by consensus or by two-thirds majority? The first draft text, released Tuesday, allowed amendments by a two-thirds majority of signatories. This means that, if the U.S. signed and ratified the treaty, its foreign policy and constitutional liberties would be subject to majority rule. The new draft requires amendment by consensus.
A consensus mechanism is far from perfect, but it is certainly better than majority rule. Many nations want to return to the two-thirds approach. That would by itself be more than enough to justify the U.S. breaking consensus on the final treaty text....."



Chicago Tribune - United Nations fails to agree landmark arms-trade treaty

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-arms-treatybre86q1mw-20120727,0,5304975.story

"....UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Delegations from around the world failed on Friday to agree a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year, diplomats said.

More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.

But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year....."



Al Jazeera - Deadline looms for UN small arms treaty, Negotiators scramble to reach consensus on treaty cracking down on the $60bn business of illicit trading in small arms.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/07/201272718366780286.html

"....Negotiators at the United Nations are working to put final touches on a treaty cracking down on the global, $60bn business of illicit trading in small arms, a move aimed at curbing violence in some of the most troubled corners of the world.

Delegates from 170 countries are working to reach consensus on a final draft as a Friday midnight deadline (04:00 GMT Saturday) looms in New York.

A revised draft of the treaty had raised hopes from supporters and the British government, which has been the leading proponent, that a historic agreement could be reached.

But the United States and Russia, the two leading arms manufacturers and exporters, on Friday said they needed more time...."



New York Times - U.N. Misses Its Deadline For Arms Pact

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/world/proponents-of-arms-trade-treaty-urge-final-approval.html?_r=1

"....Negotiators at the United Nations failed to meet a Friday deadline to complete a new treaty aimed at regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade business, as major weapons exporting nations, including the United States, said more time was needed to finalize an agreement.

The negotiators adjourned after having met for the past four weeks with the goal of completing an agreement that proponents said would have severely restricted the cross-border flow of weapons and ammunition that has helped to fuel armed conflicts and mass killings around the world. Approval by all 193 members of the United Nations was required.
“There is no consensus and the meeting is over,” said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, which sponsored the negotiation conference on the treaty...."



Los Angeles Times - Global arms treaty hits resistance as deadline ticks down

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/global-army-treaty-hits-resistance-from-iran-dallying-by-us.html

"....Negotiators at the United Nations worked to complete a treaty to regulate the global arms trade by a Friday night deadline but faced resistance from some nations, including Iran, Syria and North Korea, and a request for more time from the United States.
The treaty aims to halt the cross-border flow of weapons and ammunition that has fueled violent conflicts around the world.

But some countries made clear their unhappiness with the restrictions in the treaty, which requires approval from all 193 United Nations members. And the Obama administration said it needed to study the text, which has gone through a series of revisions in a four-week negotiating process.

Complicating the politics of the negotiation, 51 U.S. senators have joined gun rights advocates in opposing the treaty, which they fear would infringe 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms....."

"....[Updated 5:24 p.m. Friday July 27: U.N. members ultimately failed to reach agreement by the Friday deadline. The conference chairman, Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, said that despite the stalemate,“we certainly are going to have a treaty in 2012,” the Associated Press reported.]...."



Fox News.com - UN fails to reach deal on global arms trade treaty, as US asks for more time

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/un-fails-to-reach-deal-on-global-arms-trade-treaty-as-us-asks-for-more-time/

"....U.N. member states have failed to reach agreement on a new treaty to regulate the multibillion-dollar global arms trade.
Some diplomats and treaty supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the month-long negotiating conference.
Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some key loopholes by Friday's deadline for action. But the United States announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty -- and Russia and China then also asked for more time.
A bipartisan group of 51 U.S. senators on Thursday had threatened to oppose the global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting the constitutional right to bear arms....."



ABC News - UN States Fail to Reach Global Arms Trade Treaty

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/states-fail-reach-global-arms-trade-treaty-16874637#.UBNIYY5QQqZ

"....Member states failed to reach agreement Friday on a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade, and some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference.

Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some major loopholes by Friday's deadline for action. But the U.S. announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty — and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "It's a staggering abdication of leadership by the world's largest exporter of conventional weapons to pull the plug on the talks just as they were nearing an historic breakthrough."....."



Reuters - United Nations fails to agree landmark arms-trade treaty

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/us-arms-treaty-idUSBRE86Q1MW20120727

"....Delegations from around the world failed on Friday to agree a landmark U.N. arms-trade treaty to regulate the more than $60 billion industry, opting for further talks and a possible U.N. General Assembly vote by the end of the year, diplomats said.

More than 170 countries have spent the past month in New York negotiating a treaty, which needed to be adopted by consensus, so any one country effectively could have vetoed a deal. Instead, no decision was taken on a draft treaty.

But this leaves the door open for further talks and a draft arms-trade treaty could be brought to the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly and adopted with a two-thirds majority vote. Diplomats said there could be a vote by the end of the year....."

"....While most U.N. member states favored a strong treaty, activists said there was a small minority of states, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria, who loudly voiced opposition to global arms control throughout the negotiations.

But ultimately, arms-control activists blamed the United States and Russia for the inability to reach a decision on Friday, as both countries said there was not enough time left for them to clarify and resolve issues they had with the draft treaty.

"Moving forward, President Obama must show the political courage required to make a strong treaty that contains strong rules on human rights a reality," said Scott Stedjan, a senior policy advisor at Oxfam America, which fights poverty and other injustices....."

CaliforniaLiberal
07-27-2012, 8:31 PM
Intriguing. . .

I'm glad you are taking the non-antagonistic approach on this forum!

Anyway, do you know why we didn't sign the treaty?


You really should remember that there have been quite a few of us on this forum telling people to stop worrying about this treaty. It just wasn't likely to be a significant problem.

This treaty had to be negotiated to a consensus. There was no consensus so there was no treaty to sign.

Since there was no treaty to sign, it makes absolutely no sense to give Obama props for not signing a non-existent treaty.


The only way to squeeze credit for Obama out of making the treaty die this time around is to consider that the US representatives at the UN are from his Administration acting on Administration policy. The US had a major part in preventing a successful agreement. And it was this Administration that made sure 3 years ago that consensus, rather than a majority was a requirement for a final agreement on the ATT. I believe this was to make sure the interests of US Defense Corporations making billions in profits on exporting arms around the world were well cared for.

There were several countries that wanted to kill this treaty, the US just one among them.

I believe that Obama would pass lots of Gun Control if he could. (Like with a magic genie wishing lamp) But the backlash from US gun owners would wreck the Democratic Party, so he and most of the Democrats in Congress don't push. And will not push for Gun Control.

He's talked up Gun Control in a couple of speeches since the Colorado shooting but everyone knows nothing will come of it. Just woofin'.

I think the ATT outcome shows that he prioritizes US corporate profits (and their support for his re-election) above supporting Gun Control, internationally or within the US.

CaliforniaLiberal
07-27-2012, 10:14 PM
NRA Stops UN Arms Trade Treaty!

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/nra-stops-un-arms-trade-treaty.aspx


"....U.N. ATT Conference Comes to an Impasse

The Conference on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (U.N. ATT) has broken down and will not report a draft treaty to the member nations.

This is a big victory for American gun owners, and the NRA is being widely credited for killing the U.N. ATT....."

advocatusdiaboli
07-31-2012, 2:47 PM
Treaty wasn't signed. You can all go back to attacking the presidents birth certificate or whatever else you think he will do to take away our gun rights which he hasn't done in all his time in office as president.

For the past, I tend to agree, but his recent pandering efforts lead me to believe Obama plans significant restrictions to 2A rights in his next term and will campaign on that unless his pollsters tell him to stop. I also believe he relishes the idea of appointing the swing vote SCOTUS justice that will stop further progress on 2A rights by letting states augment and restrict further any federal firearms laws. This will ensure that the Roster will stand forever.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-04-2012, 2:40 AM
As usual the Heritage Foundation has the article most worth reading of the bunch.

Heritage Foundation - U.S. Should Act to Stop Renewed Rush to Arms Trade Treaty

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/us-should-act-to-stop-renewed-rush-to-arms-trade-treaty

"....The U.N. negotiating conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) ended on July 27 without reaching consensus on a treaty, but the ATT is far from dead. The conference was only one step in the process.
When the U.N. General Assembly (GA) meets in September, it will have before it the report of the negotiating conference and the draft treaty text. The ATT’s proponents plan to vote it through the GA. The U.S. should act now to stop this renewed rush to adopt the ATT....."

"....nations and NGOs around the world have showered the U.S. with abuse for supposedly ruining the prospects of the conference. In reality, the conference was nowhere close to reaching consensus: When seven working groups on various contentious issues reported late on the afternoon of July 27, not a single one of them had resolved the issue they were charged to consider.

The best that can be said of the conference is that it did not, in the end, produce an ATT. A fundamentally flawed concept would have made an even worse treaty if rushed to completion. But the conference was nonetheless a comprehensive failure for the Administration. It has produced an avowedly unsatisfactory text with a large group of supporters that is now united around blaming the U.S. for their failure...."



British News Magazine - The Economist

The Economist - One more heave, Supporters of a global Arms Trade Treaty have not given up

http://www.economist.com/node/21559900

"....CLOSE, but no cigar. That pretty much sums up efforts to reach agreement on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which foundered at the United Nations on July 28th. Delegates from more than 170 countries had spent a month trying to secure consensus on regulating the $60 billion-a-year trade in conventional weapons...."

"....after a day of increasingly frantic negotiations, the hopes of the vast majority of UN members were dashed at the last moment by opposition from both the Americans and the Russians, who complained that there was not enough time left to “clarify and resolve” a small number of issues. The feeling among many diplomats present was that, having made a huge amount of progress, there had been a failure of political nerve in the White House, which has strongly supported the ATT since 2009. As one experienced observer put it: “Surprisingly, it was the US that crashed it.”



Official response from Indian Government when asked to comment on the end of ATT negotiations

India news media - Don't rush through arms treaty: India

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dont-rush-through-arms-treaty-india/277834-3.html

"....New Delhi: With a view that it was premature to work on a comprehensive legally-binding arms trade treaty, India on Thursday said it should not be rushed through and maintained that it was prepared to be engaged for a consensus-based process and outcome.

"A number of delegations, including India, felt that the draft text needs further work and a treaty of this kind, which would be legally-binding when in force, should not be rushed through," the official spokesperson in the Ministry of External Affairs said.

He was responding to a querry on India's position on recently-held UN conference to negotiate an arms trade treaty (ATT) which failed to adopt an agreed text....."



New Zealand online news - Down But Not Out: NZ Must Play Critical Role in Arms Treaty

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1207/S00398/down-but-not-out-nz-must-play-critical-role-in-arms-treaty.htm

"....Down But Not Out: New Zealand Must Play Critical Role In Saving Arms Trade Treaty
There is still hope for countries to reach agreement on an Arms Trade Treaty, despite governments failing to reach a consensus agreement in New York, Oxfam New Zealand said today.

Throughout July, countries have been negotiating for legally-binding regulations for the international weapons trade. In the final hours of negotiations, consensus was blocked by the United States, Russia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, who all asked for more time....."



NPR - UN States Fail To Reach Global Arms Trade Treaty

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=157513516

"....Member states failed to reach agreement Friday on a new U.N. treaty to regulate the multibillion dollar global arms trade, and some diplomats and supporters blamed the United States for triggering the unraveling of the monthlong negotiating conference.

Hopes had been raised that agreement could be reached on a revised treaty text that closed some major loopholes by Friday's deadline for action. But the U.S. announced Friday morning that it needed more time to consider the proposed treaty — and Russia and China then also asked for more time.

"This was stunning cowardice by the Obama administration, which at the last minute did an about-face and scuttled progress toward a global arms treaty, just as it reached the finish line," said Suzanne Nossel, executive director of Amnesty International USA....."



Gantdaily.com - Local PA online news. "Arms trade treaty failure not all doom and gloom"

http://gantdaily.com/2012/08/03/arms-trade-treaty-failure-not-all-doom-and-gloom/

"....The meeting addressed three overriding issues for a treaty: Scope – to determine which categories of weapons will be included; criteria – establishing a minimum threshold for the transfer of weapons and implementation – covering such mechanisms as the establishment by each potential signatory of transparent and competent regulating authorities.

Governments from 90 participating countries delivered a joint statement after the meeting expressing disappointment and a determination “to secure an ATT as soon as possible – one that will bring about a safer world for the sake of all humanity”.

The silver lining, according to some proponents of a “robust” treaty, was that there is still an opportunity for a legally-binding instrument to regulate the arms trade, and there are “a few options available”, Ray Acheson, project director of RCW, told IRIN.

“The current draft could be taken to the UN General Assembly for a vote, if a member state is willing to propose this. Or, states could propose a stronger draft for vote at the General Assembly. Or, the General Assembly could establish a new negotiating mandate for the ATT, at which point states could work off the current draft text as a basis for negotiations, or they could start from scratch. Or, the matter could be dropped entirely, though this seems unlikely,” she said...."