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.
UN Arms Trade Treaty Adopted
page: 1share:
www.washingtonpost.com...
5e-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html
UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the first U.N. treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade, a goal sought for more than a decade to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.
So... I wonder how long before groups like the NRA, Tea Party(s), militias, etc., will be labeled terrorists and insurgent fighters engaged in organized crime.
The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.
Wouldn't controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components, and regulate arms brokers (gun shops), in fact, be controlling the domestic use of weapons?
Edit: I now wish I'd copy/pasted the entire article first time round. Seems they've already re-written it.
www.washingtonpost.com...[editby ]edit on 2-4-2013 by 2ndthought because: (no reason given)
UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the first U.N. treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade, a goal sought for more than a decade to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.
So... I wonder how long before groups like the NRA, Tea Party(s), militias, etc., will be labeled terrorists and insurgent fighters engaged in organized crime.
The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.
Wouldn't controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components, and regulate arms brokers (gun shops), in fact, be controlling the domestic use of weapons?
Edit: I now wish I'd copy/pasted the entire article first time round. Seems they've already re-written it.
www.washingtonpost.com...[editby ]edit on 2-4-2013 by 2ndthought because: (no reason given)
I find this hilarious the largest arms suppliers in the world sit on the UN "security" council
China,Russia,United Kingdom, and the US who all supply arms "illegally" the only thing they are doing is cutting down the competition.
China,Russia,United Kingdom, and the US who all supply arms "illegally" the only thing they are doing is cutting down the competition.
Wouldn't controlling the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components, and regulate arms brokers (gun shops), in fact, be controlling the domestic use of weapons?
Yes take glock for instance not domestically made is it?
And others.
Eh. In the end really what's the point? The UN will just spent 40 years sending "please stop" letters. It only becomes an issue when they put blue
boots on the ground to rape your children.
This is about a lot of things. Not least of which though are the near unlimited flow of weapons into Africa and other conflict regions. I'd just
watched a lengthy video in geography covering the Congo and the gold trade that has come to replace the blood diamond trade. Diamonds are tracked
these days ...Gold is far more problematic, even if people wanted to track it. Most don't.
The surprising thing was, the people shooting the documentary had absolutely no problem buying a Russian AK-47 for $100 American and were offered a few kilos of Uranium as well. All packaged and shielded in a 20 kilo container. It's mined in Central Africa and part of the new trade over diamonds.
Russia and more to the point, China are flooding Central Africa with weapons for influence and trade consideration to the mineral wealth being mined out of the region. It's a horrible situation and no one wins.
I don't know if this was the answer but I DO know that no treaty, even if the US had ratified this, can take rule over the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause overrides any treaty in conflict. So, with that in mind, well? Something does need to be done in places where the flood of guns is so strong that you can literally get a rifle easier than a few days food.
The surprising thing was, the people shooting the documentary had absolutely no problem buying a Russian AK-47 for $100 American and were offered a few kilos of Uranium as well. All packaged and shielded in a 20 kilo container. It's mined in Central Africa and part of the new trade over diamonds.
Russia and more to the point, China are flooding Central Africa with weapons for influence and trade consideration to the mineral wealth being mined out of the region. It's a horrible situation and no one wins.
I don't know if this was the answer but I DO know that no treaty, even if the US had ratified this, can take rule over the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause overrides any treaty in conflict. So, with that in mind, well? Something does need to be done in places where the flood of guns is so strong that you can literally get a rifle easier than a few days food.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I was going to argue your post, re: the Supremacy Clause. Then the words 'in conflict' jumped out. You may have a case, but Obama could still sign the treaty without Senate ratification, binding us to the treaty. The Senate could then try to nullify that, via the Supreme Court, but it would take a great deal of time, years perhaps, and much could be done (damaged) in the interim.
Still, If Obama signs without Senate ratification, we'd be bound and remain bound until it does go for a Senate vote, and voted yea or nay. OR... until the next President takes office and nullifies it.
Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
I was going to argue your post, re: the Supremacy Clause. Then the words 'in conflict' jumped out. You may have a case, but Obama could still sign the treaty without Senate ratification, binding us to the treaty. The Senate could then try to nullify that, via the Supreme Court, but it would take a great deal of time, years perhaps, and much could be done (damaged) in the interim.
Still, If Obama signs without Senate ratification, we'd be bound and remain bound until it does go for a Senate vote, and voted yea or nay. OR... until the next President takes office and nullifies it.
Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
reply to post by 2ndthought
The treaty specifies that the countries buying the guns or the shops that import the weapons need their host nation to clarify that the weapons won't be used in crimes against humanity.
So if you buy a brand new glock from your local gun dealer, the US government would have to report to the UN that you're not going to enslave people with your new glock to mine for diamonds or gold or start a drug cartel in Mexico.
It's a good move by the UN and there's no legitimate reason to oppose it.
The treaty specifies that the countries buying the guns or the shops that import the weapons need their host nation to clarify that the weapons won't be used in crimes against humanity.
So if you buy a brand new glock from your local gun dealer, the US government would have to report to the UN that you're not going to enslave people with your new glock to mine for diamonds or gold or start a drug cartel in Mexico.
It's a good move by the UN and there's no legitimate reason to oppose it.
reply to post by links234
Your mood is Oppressed, and you don't feel the potential for oppression by this? Hmmm.
This treaty, imo, gives the UN the ability to define 'genocide' and 'crime against humanity'. By extension, who could become a perpetrator of that crime.
Several of the recent mass murder shootings that we've endured lately could be defined as both genocide and a crime against humanity. I'd rather not have an international body of third world countries decide that gun rights in this country need to be clamped down on because ALL American gun owners have the potential to become mass murders.
Your mood is Oppressed, and you don't feel the potential for oppression by this? Hmmm.
This treaty, imo, gives the UN the ability to define 'genocide' and 'crime against humanity'. By extension, who could become a perpetrator of that crime.
Several of the recent mass murder shootings that we've endured lately could be defined as both genocide and a crime against humanity. I'd rather not have an international body of third world countries decide that gun rights in this country need to be clamped down on because ALL American gun owners have the potential to become mass murders.
Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by links234
Your mood is Oppressed, and you don't feel the potential for oppression by this? Hmmm.
Why would I? The treaty has little to no bearing on US citizens whatsoever. One person isn't going to commit genocide with one pistol. Explain to me how the UN would ever impose any form of opression over any nation in the world, least of all the United States.
We provide the most funding and the most troops to the United Nations. We provide their meeting place and have veto power in the security council. The United States has no need to fear any reprisal from the United Nations. We only need to fear our own ignorance that would cause catastrophic harm to our standing with the UN. We won't ever be invaded but we would be decimated if we tried to live on this planet by ourselves.
This treaty, imo, gives the UN the ability to define 'genocide' and 'crime against humanity'. By extension, who could become a perpetrator of that crime.
The UN has already defined genocide and crimes against humanity;
Genocide is defined as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (and) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
Mind you that the United States has already agreed to these definitions and accepts them as international law.
Several of the recent mass murder shootings that we've endured lately could be defined as both genocide and a crime against humanity.
I seriously doubt that.
reply to post by links234
You assume that the US would WANT to argue any decree handed down by the UN as concerns gun control. This administration has proven that gun control is exactly what they want, in it's most strict form.
I assume that this administration would do, even help draft, any UN mandate that would help in that endeavour.
You assume that the US would WANT to argue any decree handed down by the UN as concerns gun control. This administration has proven that gun control is exactly what they want, in it's most strict form.
I assume that this administration would do, even help draft, any UN mandate that would help in that endeavour.
what about "fast and furious?"
ooops
so much for the moral highground
ooops
so much for the moral highground
Maybe Russia or China will use their veto power....Kind of sad to rely on them but hey; get it where you can, no?
Also: Copied from www.state.gov...
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.
So...I really do believe if anything happens it will be more of a Registration requirment,
insurance in the form of liability insurance for owning,
a special permit to buy ammo and sever penalties for non compliance..
hahahah just checked Drudge report some of our dear leaders are already proposing such stuff.
Also: Copied from www.state.gov...
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.
So...I really do believe if anything happens it will be more of a Registration requirment,
insurance in the form of liability insurance for owning,
a special permit to buy ammo and sever penalties for non compliance..
hahahah just checked Drudge report some of our dear leaders are already proposing such stuff.
reply to post by Danbones
Just so, Dan. This admin. supplies guns to the Mexican drug cartels. Where they are used for both genocide AND crimes against humanity.
Do you think the UN is going to prosecute the country that supplies their existence? Bite the hand that feeds them? Of course not.
Just so, Dan. This admin. supplies guns to the Mexican drug cartels. Where they are used for both genocide AND crimes against humanity.
Do you think the UN is going to prosecute the country that supplies their existence? Bite the hand that feeds them? Of course not.
reply to post by 727Sky
Well then...
Since these US red-lines are so important, they can be used against our own Congress if they try to implement them.
Redline 1)There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
A registration or insurance requirement will absolutely restrict civilian possession and trade.
Redline 2) There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
A permit to purchase ammo is a requirement to report and trace those purchases.
So, by their own words can the war be won.
Well then...
Since these US red-lines are so important, they can be used against our own Congress if they try to implement them.
Redline 1)There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
A registration or insurance requirement will absolutely restrict civilian possession and trade.
Redline 2) There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
A permit to purchase ammo is a requirement to report and trace those purchases.
So, by their own words can the war be won.
Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I was going to argue your post, re: the Supremacy Clause. Then the words 'in conflict' jumped out. You may have a case, but Obama could still sign the treaty without Senate ratification, binding us to the treaty. The Senate could then try to nullify that, via the Supreme Court, but it would take a great deal of time, years perhaps, and much could be done (damaged) in the interim.
Still, If Obama signs without Senate ratification, we'd be bound and remain bound until it does go for a Senate vote, and voted yea or nay. OR... until the next President takes office and nullifies it.
Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
To borrow one of my posts from another gun control UN thread -
The UN can put together all the bills / laws / agreement it wants. The fact of the matter is it does in fact violate the Constitution.
A trump card so to speak, can be played thanks to a US Supreme Court ruling from a hundred plus years ago.
The ruling occurred in the Head Money case. That ruling affirmed the US Constitution the Supreme Law of the land while placing treaties one step down. It specifically prohibits the ability of our government to be granted new powers, ones not spelled out in the Constitution, via foreign treaty.
Secondly it ruled that any foreign treaty the US signs onto is subordinate to the constitution. The treaty becomes a part of the federal body of law. Because of this, Congress can change the treaty criteria via legislation. In addition it allows citizens to challenge those treaties in US courts.
Head Money Case - 112 U.S. 580
In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.
What does this mean? It means if the people want to get rid of this crap, then they must get involved in government, holding their elected officials accountable, firing them when they fail / ignore their job requirement and oath of office while voting people in who wish to lead, not for greater power, but for common purpose to make this county what it once was.
Most recent US Supreme Court Rulings on the 2nd Amendment -
District of Columbia vs. Heller - 2008
McDonald vs. Chicago - 2010
End result of the court cases -
The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution applies to the individual and cannot be restricted in the manner Obama and his cronies are wanting to do.
Get involved people.
edit on 2-4-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 2ndthought
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I was going to argue your post, re: the Supremacy Clause. Then the words 'in conflict' jumped out. You may have a case, but Obama could still sign the treaty without Senate ratification, binding us to the treaty. The Senate could then try to nullify that, via the Supreme Court, but it would take a great deal of time, years perhaps, and much could be done (damaged) in the interim.
Still, If Obama signs without Senate ratification, we'd be bound and remain bound until it does go for a Senate vote, and voted yea or nay. OR... until the next President takes office and nullifies it.
Supremacy Clause (Article VI)
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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Links is right about the scope and meaning of the treaty and the lack of domestic application anyway. The US did vote to pass this in the UN by the way. Iran, North Korea and Syria were the no votes and Russia/China Abstained.
The thing about the Supremacy clause is that you can't simply take the straight language of the document on this. In fact, the Constitution can never be taken for law as literal word for word. How do you imagine Roe V Wade even came to be a Federal precedent set? Or in a more positive note, the 2009 Heller decision which absolutely and without question made individual ownership of a firearm a protected right by interpretation?
There are a few key cases and I don't have them off the top of my head. I've written posts with them quoted and listed more than once though, if you wanted to look. They've been Supreme Court precedent setting on how treaties do and do not apply.
If the President signs it.. We ARE obligated to it for international agreement, where it applies outside the US. That is the President's prerogative as Chief of foreign policy. Domestic? That takes Senate ratification to even apply and there is where the precedent cases come in for having established that no treaty of any kind may hold authority over the Constitution in any way or form. Not just the Second, but any amendment. Let's say China pushed a Free Speech chiller through the UN and come crazy future US President signed it? That would get wild outside the US Jurisdiction ..since US citizens would be subject to it as I understand that process... Inside the US tho? We'd still be perfectly free to tell 'em to suck eggs.
Gotta love the Constitution. It really was set up with backstops to the backstops. They were intelligent people back then.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Ive been seeing some of the same comments about the President signing and the US being obligated once it occurs via the Commerce Clause.
While the President is the chief diplomat and can put treaties together / sign on to them, that's where is ends.
Per the Constitution any treaty the President signs onto must be sent to the Senate, who will then review it and do their advise and consent and accept it or they can reject it. A treaty cannot go into effect until the Senate ratifies it.
Once ratified the Federal Government then uses the Commerce Clause, which applies the treaty to the states.
Treaty ratification is not like a pocket veto or recess appointment. It must be ratified before it can go into effect.
Ive been seeing some of the same comments about the President signing and the US being obligated once it occurs via the Commerce Clause.
While the President is the chief diplomat and can put treaties together / sign on to them, that's where is ends.
Per the Constitution any treaty the President signs onto must be sent to the Senate, who will then review it and do their advise and consent and accept it or they can reject it. A treaty cannot go into effect until the Senate ratifies it.
Once ratified the Federal Government then uses the Commerce Clause, which applies the treaty to the states.
Treaty ratification is not like a pocket veto or recess appointment. It must be ratified before it can go into effect.
reply to post by Xcathdra
You're right on that, with the Senate ratifying it. That's absolute for a treaty to mean anything whatsoever within the borders or on the soil of the United States.
What gets a little fuzzy ...and what I can't easily find something to clarify after looking around is what does happen if the President signs it, the United States helps pass it by UN vote for world passage and enforcement outside the borders of our nation ..yet still not ratified by the Senate? Obviously, it still holds no value inside the nation, even if it had meant to (which this treaty didn't anyway).
In this one, the US did pass it in the UN. It is International Law, as I understand how this works now. So, it WILL be enforced, real as anything, on people outside and off US soil ...US citizens or not, right? U.S. Citizens don't get an exemption from International Law in the eyes of other nations just because we didn't fully ratify something? (Unless the US's sheer size and power makes that difference...but we're talking legal points...)
So...What IS the precise law as it really works? Again, I can't find direct explanation. Not without digging deep apparently. That's what college instructors are for.
I figured I'd ask a couple today or tomorrow night and get clarification on where such specifics could be found before coming back.
You're right on that, with the Senate ratifying it. That's absolute for a treaty to mean anything whatsoever within the borders or on the soil of the United States.
What gets a little fuzzy ...and what I can't easily find something to clarify after looking around is what does happen if the President signs it, the United States helps pass it by UN vote for world passage and enforcement outside the borders of our nation ..yet still not ratified by the Senate? Obviously, it still holds no value inside the nation, even if it had meant to (which this treaty didn't anyway).
In this one, the US did pass it in the UN. It is International Law, as I understand how this works now. So, it WILL be enforced, real as anything, on people outside and off US soil ...US citizens or not, right? U.S. Citizens don't get an exemption from International Law in the eyes of other nations just because we didn't fully ratify something? (Unless the US's sheer size and power makes that difference...but we're talking legal points...)
So...What IS the precise law as it really works? Again, I can't find direct explanation. Not without digging deep apparently. That's what college instructors are for.
I figured I'd ask a couple today or tomorrow night and get clarification on where such specifics could be found before coming back.
edit on 3-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
It's the United States and Russia sending weapons to other nations that has got to stop. They are not going to take away our guns. We are the
instigators to all the wars and we need to stop. They aren't interested in taking away the "peoples" guns. They just want the USA and Russia to stop
arming the world with weapons and justly so... When will "we" wake up and see we are starting WW3..... They (the USA) don't want us to have weapons
but will arm rebels in other countries with AK47's, tanks and planes. They will start wars that only benefit the arms corporations in this country as
well as Halliburton the MAJOR war machine.
The USA is no longer a "friendly" nation and is trying to position itself to dominate the world. China isn't going to stand for it along with a lot of other countries. We are hated by most countries because like the mayor of NYC we want to be in everyone's business and control the world. I'm ashamed of what we are doing...
The USA is no longer a "friendly" nation and is trying to position itself to dominate the world. China isn't going to stand for it along with a lot of other countries. We are hated by most countries because like the mayor of NYC we want to be in everyone's business and control the world. I'm ashamed of what we are doing...
edit on 3-4-2013 by SSFlorida because: More thought
edit on 3-4-2013 by SSFlorida because: More
thoughts
reply to post by SSFlorida
Do you realize that they (the USA) not only signed onto this treaty, but co-sponsored it as well? The USA co-sponsored a treaty that will take a good deal of profit from it?
No. Mark my words, this is one step closer to world domination by the UN. They can't dominate if private citizens have private weapons. I DO believe Obama, or another US President in the near future, will use this treaty to dis-arm private US citizens. Constitution be damned.
As for taking our guns now. Read the news. It's happening more and more, daily, for various reasons. Many of them frivolous reasons.
Do you realize that they (the USA) not only signed onto this treaty, but co-sponsored it as well? The USA co-sponsored a treaty that will take a good deal of profit from it?
No. Mark my words, this is one step closer to world domination by the UN. They can't dominate if private citizens have private weapons. I DO believe Obama, or another US President in the near future, will use this treaty to dis-arm private US citizens. Constitution be damned.
As for taking our guns now. Read the news. It's happening more and more, daily, for various reasons. Many of them frivolous reasons.