It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty – Final Working Document

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Sorry if this is in the wrong category or already posted. I have been watching this closely. From what I have read it seems innocent enough. But then, so did the voluntary tax to help fund WW1 that gave birth to the Internal Revenue Service. Lets not forget mandatory payments of your sweat to an ever-growing gov entity focused on increasing it's own influence. This is due to be signed in 2 days. 2 days that can be used to rewrite any part of this documentation.
AmmoLand
I would remind everyone of the 450 MILLION bullets acquired by DHS last spring. Some might think there was a connection or anticipation there.
Business Insider

edit on 25-7-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
given part of it says




Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;


it won't stop anyone buying an American made gun so it might actually improve the economy since it'll be easier to buy a made in america gun versus a foreign made item



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
given part of it says




Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;


it won't stop anyone buying an American made gun so it might actually improve the economy since it'll be easier to buy a made in america gun versus a foreign made item


Note that says with the state. Meaning, you cannot buy arms across state lines?

Not so sure if transfers means inter-statial or outer, but my first impression it means inter-statial among purchasers and sellers.

Conventional arms? Does that refer to certain types of weapons? And who deems what "conventional" means?

From what I understand, only a few states manufacture and sell their own arms within their own state borders.

Wasn't Wyoming one of them? That's the only way they were able to keep the Feds from regulating their arms to begin with.

I found the article about it, and I don't recall any other state taking these steps. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

billingsgazette.com...



Firearms Freedom Act passes; governor to sign it

March 04, 2010 12:00 am • JEREMY PELZER Casper Star-Tribune

CHEYENNE — Legislation asserting that firearms made, sold and kept only in Wyoming are exempt from all federal gun laws is set to become law after it easily cleared the Wyoming Legislature on Wednesday.

Supporters say the bill is mainly a symbolic shove against the federal government, and it remains to be seen whether the fight will carry over to the courts or even to Wyoming streets.

The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act passed the state Senate without objection on Wednesday. Gov. Dave Freudenthal has indicated that he will sign the bill into law. Two other states, Tennessee and Montana, have enacted similar laws.

Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act, though, is harsher than those laws, as it states that any state or federal official who tries to enforce any federal gun law on a firearms made and sold in Wyoming could face a $2,000 fine and up to a year in prison.

While that might conjure up images of Wyoming sheriffs arresting U.S. marshals who try to enforce federal laws on Wyoming guns, state Rep. Allen Jaggi, R-Lyman, said the bill was mainly intended to be a symbolic assertion of Wyoming residents’ constitutional rights.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Why doesn't anyone else see the issue at hand here?
This isn't about losing our 2nd amendment, which we can never lose.
The problem is:

We don't need the UN's permission for trade



This has nothing to do with our 2nd amendment.
It is a control scheme aimed at calmly getting the people "normalized" with UN law.
It is a unique way to stretch the control of this nation to UN hands.

Do I need to make myself clear?
We already have laws on the books state-by-state.
We don't need a "treaty" from the UN about arms trading.
We especially don't need our corrupted gov't signing off on it.

Can we see the bigger picture now?






posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Looks like my assumption may be correct after reading it. It applies to states in every way you could imagine. It literally limits states that manufacture weapons to implement international guidelines for exportation to other *states*.



Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms: being diverted to the illicit market; be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children; become subject to corrupt practices; or adversely impact the development of the recipient State.


The use of the word State here defines explicitly, non-international arms sales, as that is oulined in another paragraph. In other words, the arms dealer would be held responsible if the weapon is used in a crime against women, children, etc? Wow.



2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.


This looks to me like they have to set up the gun registry that Obama wanted that was slammed out of the House many moons ago as being too restrictive. Now, it will be mandated by the U.N. Keep in mind, this is inter-statial, meaning between states.



3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

- 4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.


So every gun purchaser we be identified and sent to the U.N. in a database.

Really?

Buy em NOW.



ARTICLE 12

ENFORCEMENT

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.


It also forces the States to adopt national measures? Federal Law overriding state law?

Read more at Ammoland.com: www.ammoland.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


If this gets ratified, does that not mean it becomes the law in the US?

The only way we do not lose our 2nd ammendment rights is if it does not get ratified.

If it is ratified, expect the uprising Obama is looking for.

Need I say more?

I *knew* I hear about this loophole somewhere...

www.radioshownotes.com...


Friday, July 13, 2012Treaty ratification loophole?
Don pointed out on our show today (July 13th) the specific language of the U.S. Constitution regarding the ratification of treaties. Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 says:

He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
No quorum is specifically referenced in the key passage, no notice requiremetns. Just approval by two thirds of those present.

Might this open the door to some kind of lame duck, late night, recess maneuver to ratify something like the Arms Trade Treaty now being negotiated at the U.N.?

I'd like to know if any other treaties might have been ratified previously under such a maneuver? Even if it hasn't been done before, how might the current U.S. Supreme Court view such a move? Speculation on the answer may vary widely especially after the creative interpretation from the court that allowed the Obamacare individual mandate to stand.


edit on 25-7-2012 by Libertygal because: ETA link



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
heres the KICKER

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
In other words the goverment agrees to pass legislation which the UN demands to comply with the treaty.....!!!
The gun registry is only the beginning!
Time to stop this madness.....the UN is NOT the BOSS of ME!

Read more at Ammoland.com: www.ammoland.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
So the unit required to implement this mess will be called the ISU according to that document.
Thats some intel I can use.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
heres the KICKER

Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.
In other words the goverment agrees to pass legislation which the UN demands to comply with the treaty.....!!!
The gun registry is only the beginning!
Time to stop this madness.....the UN is NOT the BOSS of ME!

Read more at Ammoland.com: www.ammoland.com...


Not only that, but it is the responsibility of each state to pay for it and to omplement with IN staff to assist.

Wow.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Wanted to throw this out there:


In addition to treaties, presidents often sign executive agreements with the heads of other nations. Executive agreements are not officially treaties, so they do not require the consent of the Senate. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled that executive agreements are part of the supreme law of the land, just like treaties.


(emphasis added by me)

Source

Please note, I have not researched this thoroughly...I had heard this on a radio show the other day, and it stuck in my mind...

Can the pres sign an "executive agreement" with the UN?


edit on 25-7-2012 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2012 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)


ETA:

If an executive agreement conflicts with state law, state law loses.

again, emphasis added by me...

Source
edit on 25-7-2012 by edaced4 because: added more info...



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
If this gets ratified, does that not mean it becomes the law in the US?



In a legal sense, no. Treaties do not supercede the constitution. In a practical sense, they might not care.

I don't believe there's any chance of it being ratified, anyway. Almost 60 senators have already signed a statement to the administration that they will not vote to ratify a treaty that would restrict civilian gun rights.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


I hate to burst the proverbial bubble..but,


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding


U.S. Constitution - Article 6

in a sense, treaties do override the Constitution...
edit on 25-7-2012 by edaced4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by edaced4
 


Yes, a treaty, if ratified, would be considered the law of the land...but it is still subject to review by the US Supreme Court under Article 3 Section 2. The Supreme Court can, in fact, strike down a treaty as unconstitutional, and therefore, a treaty does not supercede the constitution.




The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;


Link

edit on 25-7-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has ruled that executive agreements are part of the supreme law of the land, just like treaties.


Just sayin...

Mayhaps we'll see what POTUS does tomorrow?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I think a lot of people here are confusing the word STATE. In regards to UN measure, State usually refers to the Country as a whole. This agreement or treaty is a global treaty... they don't care if Billybob transfers his AR-15 from West Virginia to Arkansas... they are concerned when crates of guns head into war-ravaged parts of Africa to be used to slaughter thousands of innocent children.

For all the hype and fear-mongering I have ingested about this treaty, it sounds pretty harmless to me.

Just adding my 2 cents here ...I am in the middle of an International Relations course towards my MBA so I
thought I would add some input.

Link to the full text of the treaty

Link


edit on 26-7-2012 by DoubleDNH because: (no reason given)


edit on 26-7-2012 by DoubleDNH because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join