Quantcast

U.N. Passes Sweeping International Arms Treaty Despite Protests by U.S. Gun Rights Advocates

Screen shot 2013-04-02 at 12.30.02 PM

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.

The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

SEE RELATED: New Connecticut gun law to ban another 100 weapons
With the Obama administration supporting the final treaty draft, the General Assembly vote was 154 to 3, with 23 abstentions.

American gun rights activists, though, insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. They do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.

Critics of the treaty were heartened by the U.S. Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate late last month, the Senate approved a nonbinding amendment opposing the treaty offered by Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, with eight Democrats joining all 45 Republicans backing the amendment.

“The Senate has already gone on record in stating that an Arms Trade Treaty has no hope, especially if it does not specifically protect the individual right to bear arms and American sovereignty,” Sen. Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican who backed Mr. Inhofe’s motion, said in a statement. “It would be pointless for the president to sign such a treaty and expect the Senate to go along. We won’t ratify it.”

Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured President Obama to support the treaty, and Amnesty International hailed Tuesday’s vote.

“The voices of reason triumphed over skeptics, treaty opponents and dealers in death to establish a revolutionary treaty that constitutes a major step toward keeping assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons out of the hands of despots and warlords who use them to kill and maim civilians, recruit child soldiers and commit other serious abuses,” said Frank Jannuzi, deputy executive director of Amnesty International USA.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control
The American Bar Association also released a white paper arguing that the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.

General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic said Tuesday that the lack of a regulatory framework on the import and transfer of conventional arms “has made a daunting contribution to ongoing conflict, regional instabilities, displacement of peoples, terrorism and transnational organized crime.”

“Whatever the outcome of today’s meeting, for a treaty to be effective, we will need to keep working together to fulfill its goals,” he said.

Read more at The Washington Times

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Old Ga Dawg

    It’s looks to be a “War” coming soon……. If Obama had any sense he would pull the U.S out of the U.N and tell them all where to go….

    • There is the problem in a nut shell, you know Obama does not have any sense. Of course neither does America, we elected him.

      • tiredofbums

        Got A mouse in your pocket? There was No WE where I come from. We didn’t elect him. You might have but WE didn’t.

    • ConservativeGrl

      BO has no sense though, and he intentionally wants to destroy us. He wants a war. We defeated the first Hitler and we can defeat the second one!

    • His only sense is to put you and the rest of US either in a FEMA PRISON and re-educate US or out right kill US along with his co-conspiritor Bill AYERS

  • Jack Q

    The UN has never successfully done anything in it’s existence. What makes anyone think they can actually do anything with this?

    • Because we have a puzzy of a president who will sell us down the river for anything that might lead to gun control….

    • True. They are a bunch of one-world windbags.

    • Cheesy

      They’ve managed to do a real good job at assisting genocide.

  • Of course Amnesty International Is happy about this….Amnesty International Has been funded in part by GEORGE SOROS duhhhh connect the dots

  • They can pass what they want. First blue helmet I see……. well…. Let’s just say they will understand why the Japanese didn’t invade after Pearl Harbor.

    • K

      Right on “Bill Cowman”
      Americans do NOT need or want the UN on our soil and we must do what ever it takes to keep them out of America, “What Ever it Takes”!
      “Know thy Enemy”! The United Nations “IS” OUR ENEMY!

      Now it can be told. The United Nations forces are not “peacekeepers” as they are claimed to be. Instead, the blue-helmeted troops of the UN are proven to be sinister, war-waging hellraisers. The evidence is accumulating that the UN and its subsidiary NATO soldiers rank with Hitler’s SS Gestapo, Stalin’s Red Army, Gorbachev’s Spetznatz (Special Forces), and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge as this century’s most brutal and bloody occupation forces.

      The UN forces are regrettably buttressed by American military units, money, and military high technology. With U.S. assistance, they are plundering, raping, and murdering people at an alarming pace. The goal of the UN overlords is not to bring forth peace out of chaos but to install Communist, pro-New World Order regimes in every nation on Earth. Any national leader who opposes this UN scheme is immediately targeted for destruction, and his country’s citizens are scheduled for genocidal massacre.
      http://www.texemarrs.com/101997/un_peacekeepers_raise_hell.htm

      Beasts in Blue Berets – The Reality Of The United Nations
      http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

      Those U.N. peacekeeping atrocities
      http://www.wnd.com/1997/06/901/

      The Folly Of The United Nations (U.N.) Peacekeeping
      http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/un.htm

      • Mikee

        K, I think you got it right>

  • kds

    Looks like the Third World War is in the beginning stages and it is going to start here. It will be a revolution wit wide spreading impacts for everyone, Washington being the first stop then Korea, Iran, Russia, China and all of those who hate us but take everything they can get from us.

  • The Senate will not ratify it….and SCOTUS will toss it even if they do….NO foreign or international treaty trumps the Constitution!!

  • is it so difficult to understand that it is not the gun it is the user that harms people . Evil people will always find away to harm others.

  • Independentrd

    The voices of reason did not triumph, they failed!

  • Dr. Death

    I’m in a wheelchair, and I have one powered by a hopped-up Honda 70 motor that goes 30 mph topped out. I am fitting it with 1/4 inch steel plate that protects me and the engine, and gas tank, a mini-tank. It will also be fitted with an 1884 Trap door Springfield in 45.70 that will get the job done on anything painted baby blue. I didn’t serve six years in the US Navy to have my rights handed to a commie president intent on destroying everything I’ve worked for.

  • Chris

    I’m a citizen of the USA, not the UN, and abide by the second amendment of the US Constitution, not mandates handed out from the corrupt and oppressive UN.

  • We aren’t really part of the UN. If remember right it was never voted in. After ww2 the us put it to vote and it was voted down. Eisenhower enacted it against congress vote by hiding it in another bill. At that time it was known as the League of Nations. I believe that what we learned in school but could be wrong

  • Sorry I was mistaken it was FDR and it was the United Nations. League if nations was something else

    • agbjr

      You have confused yourself; the League of Nations was Wilson’s idealistic concept. It was refuted by the Senate and Wilson toured the nation attempting to get the people to force the Senate into ratification. The people wanted nothing to do with the League as well and Wilson gave himself a massive stroke trying to force the people to accept his ideology; he failed and finished his term an invalid. We can only hope today’s Senate stands their ground against the UN and Obama emulates Wilson.

  • No one man or group of men can give away our soverienty to any other entity as that is tatamount to the worst treason to WE the PEOPLE and if it comes down to throwing UN forces out of OUR REPUBLIC then so be it. OUR leaders are cowards and WE the PEOPLE must andneed to stand up for our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by force if necessary. GOD BLESS AMERICA

  • Patrick Henry.

    I already made my for sale sign, “For Sale. Blue Helmet’s and Rifles only dropped once”

  • agbjr

    Today’s Urinal Nations has no resemblance to the United Nations chartered in 1945. Lock’n’load, America, and aim well for the enemy of YOUR rights, the Constitution, and OUR Republic wears blue helmets.

  • Jim28thReg

    HEY GUESS WHO’S FIRST—— I kinda wish I was able to get around. Guess just born to soon.