Kerry Commits U.S. To U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Gun Grab

"fast and furious" was about making US dealers subject to international censure...so constitution trumping treaties could be made to apply domestically...

Originally posted by Danbones
"fast and furious" was about making US dealers subject to international censure...so constitution trumping treaties could be made to apply domestically...

The Constitution already trumps treaties...

Source

UN.... bring it on, we all would like some souvenirs ............ Blue flower pots anyone.

Originally posted by Plotus
UN.... bring it on, we all would like some souvenirs ............ Blue flower pots anyone.

Im thinking more along the lines that the UN buildings in New York would be more useful as homeless shelters and job training facilities. Those programs can be funded by the money we send the UN for dues.

The UN will eventually become irrellevant when people find out how obnoxiously corrupt it has always been. It is just a matter of time. But I find it odd that lots of americans have no problem bad mouthing iraq, iran, north korea, libya, syria, etc when the UN puts sanctions on them, and then denounce the UN as commie orientated.

People need to see who the real enemy is behind the curtain and what they are up to.

reply to post by jibeho

Clearly you need to read more about it and its scope based on the language contained in it. It could very well apply to "normal" weapons owned by civilians.

Clearly you need to work on your reading comprehension, if you have in fact read the proposed treaty.

Pardon me while I introduce some facts into the discussion:

UNODA: UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty: Myths and Facts (bolding is by me)

MYTH: The Conference is being convened to draft a global treaty to ban ownership of firearms.
FACTS: The UN is not pursuing a global treaty to ban gun ownership by civilians. Member States are committed to tightening controls over the international import, export and transfers of conventional arms, because without such controls it is easier for weapons to be diverted from the legal trade into the illegal market, and into the hands of terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal cartels.

The United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty will not aim to ban any weapon category from being traded, but the Conference will aim to set regulations on the global, crossborder trade in various conventional weapons, which until now has largely remained unregulated.

The global trade in nearly all categories of manufactured goods (such as pharmaceutical products, electronic appliances, automobiles etc.) is regulated by rules which bind exporters and importers to commonly agreed conduct. The global trade in conventional weapons should be no exception.

Sorry, you are simply wrong.

MYTH: There is a UN Convention banning the possession of firearms.
FACTS: Each sovereign State determines its own laws and regulations for the manufacture, sale and possession of firearms by its citizens. The United Nations has no jurisdiction over such matters. UN Member States adopted a legal convention by consensus, in force since September 2003, to tackle transnational organized crime. In it, they agreed to work together to counter drug trafficking; trafficking in human beings; trafficking in firearms; smuggling of migrants and money laundering. No UN agreement exists banning firearms possession.

Sorry, you are simply wrong.

Here is the Draft of the Arms Trade Treaty

I strongly suggest you at least read the 'Preamble'.

Here are some extracts from the 'Preamble':

...
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,
...
Taking note of the legitimate trade and use of certain conventional arms, inter alia, for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities and lawful ownership where such ownership and use are permitted and protected by law,

And from the 'Principles' section:

4. Non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State;

The 'Goals and Objectives' of the treaty are:

The goals and objectives of the Treaty are:
(a) For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms; and
(b) To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to the illicit market or for unauthorized end use; In order to:
(c) Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;
(d) Prevent the international trade in conventional arms from contributing to
human suffering; and
(e) Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in
the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties.

And what weapons systems are covered?

A. Covered items
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories, at a minimum:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

reply to post by rnaa


It does not specifically ban firearms, but it gives the "state party" the "shall take appropriate" action pretty much for articles 6-10. Passing broad treaties and working our laws around them is not in our best interest. There are no specific laws just dangerous generalizations. It is only in the interest of overreaching governments and far leftist radicals. If you look at the patriot act, it does not specifically violate any civil liberties, but low and behold we now have drones flying over everyone's head in the name of "safety".

If you want to trust any government with any regulation and guns, good, let them regulate your country. The only thing the UN is good for in my opinion is raping and committing fraud. Why would I trust an organization to competently run a international gun regulatory system when they cant even bring food into a country without raping the citizens of that country?

Found this tidbit within the treaty.

As the negotiations and presentations proceed, it becomes evident that many of the articles being drafted (or revised) contain provisions that would require the governments of member nations to track the transfer of weapons and ammunition within their sovereign borders. One crucial step to implementing such tracking is the creation of a registry of gun owners. Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapon transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with. Americans need to be aware that the trajectory toward the mandatory compilation of a gun owner registry is in the works here at the United Nations.

prisonplanet

Here comes gun tracking registries along with ammo, all under the guise of international trade. Guess this administration is gonna try this route.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Eventually? It's essentially a debate society already. Any teeth it ever had have long since been worn away to nothing. Any force it has is largely the United States and its affiliated allies, meaning NATO.

Nothing in this treaty means a thing if it's contrary to the Constitution. Constitution trumps all. As the bunny pointed out earlier, let's wish long life and good health to the current SCOTUS members.

Our Constitution does not allow treaties to override our laws. The commie can commit to anything he wants to but the people will be just as happy to send UN troops, home in a body bag, as anyone else if they try to abridge our rights.

Except for one small piece of information, the Secretary of State cannot adopt treaties or agreements without Congressional approval so saying we support it is far different than committing us to anything.

Jesus, people are now taking the talking points of Prisonplanet over the person who actually posted the damn agreement on the thread. Do you people just ignore the pieces that do not fit into your conspiracy theory and hyper-focus on the crap spewed forth from blogs?

I've been coming to this site for a long time and stuff like this still bothers me ... DENY IGNORANCE.

reply to post by rnaa


Been there, done that...

From your post

And what weapons systems are covered?


A. Covered items
1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories, at a minimum:
(a) Battle tanks;
(b) Armoured combat vehicles;
(c) Large-calibre artillery systems;
(d) Combat aircraft;
(e) Attack helicopters;
(f) Warships;
(g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
(h) Small arms and light weapons.

Letter (h) is what I am referring to. Small arms and light weapons. That is the item up for debate with a massive ? hanging over its head and those are the weapons that are owned by Civilians. Last time I checked, I do not have an attack helicopter locked in my safe.

The following could apply anywhere the UN see fit

Small Arms

Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.

A worldwide scourge

The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem

Make no bones about the intentions of the UN.

www.un.org...

Recognizing that the absence of commonly agreed international standards for the transfer of conventional arms that address, inter alia, the problems relating to the unregulated trade of conventional arms and their diversion to the illicit market is a contributory factor to armed conflict, the displacement of people, organized crime and terrorism, thereby undermining peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable social and economic development,

Organized crime? Say, we have an organized crime problem right here in the good old USA.

undocs.org...

Sorry man, You do not know what you are talking about and rolling out the red carpet for the UN in the United States is a bad Idea. BAD! and there are many influential people lying in the shadows of our govt. who would love nothing more than to see this come to fruition.

I've been on this topic since 2010 and will continue to follow it until this treaty is wiped out of US consideration. The UN does not need its foot in the door here. The UN needs to be abolished!! period.

Something more to chew on.

International Small Arms Control Standards.

Still being written....

Sign the treaty and open your doors

In collaboration with partners worldwide, the United Nations has developed International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) that provide clear, practical and comprehensive guidance to practioners and policymakers on fundamental aspects of small arms and light weapons control.

The standards are used by the the more than 20 UN entities that make up the UN Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA) mechanism in order to ensure that the United Nations as a whole consistently delivers, upon request, the highest quality advice and support to Member States on putting in place effective controls over the full life-cycle of small arms and light weapons.

Pay attention and remember what DHS has been up to lately

During civil unrest or armed conflict, large numbers of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition are concentrated in the hands of combatants and also often disseminate into the civilian population, where they can remain following the end of hostilities. In fragile, post-conflict environments facing numerous challenges – including the destruction of essential infrastructure, high unemployment, weakened State institutions of law and order and residual tensions between social groups – the presence of large numbers of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition can contribute to an upsurge in violent crime, as well as interpersonal and intergroup violence. This, in turn, can hamper efforts to promote rebuilding, reconciliation and recovery following conflict and can put obstacles in the path towards sustainable human development.

STill paying attention

The aim of weapons collection programmes, whether they are conducted in post- or non-conflict settings, is to promote development, minimise the chances of armed conflict or violence occurring or recurring, and reduce incidents of violent crime by limiting the availability of, and reducing trafficking in, illegal small arms, light weapons and their ammunition.
Weapons collection programmes remove illegal and unwanted small arms, light weapons and their ammunition from communities by encouraging individuals – and communities as a whole – to relinquish them and by rendering legal (e.g. through licensing and/or registration) weapons that may be held legally under national law. By thus reducing the number of illegal weapons in circulation, collection programmes can reduce the availability of illegal weapons and ammunition that might otherwise be used in armed conflict; political, ethnic or other forms of inter-communal violence; crime, family-related violence, suicide, or unintentional shootings.
A weapons collection programme is not a stand-alone activity; nor is it a panacea. Removing tools of violence from communities without addressing the root causes of violence and conflict is unlikely to make a durable contribution to building peace and security. Weapons collection is but one possible component of a comprehensive small arms and light weapons control programme, which is itself but one tool among others in the toolbox of armed violence prevention.

Note item C and note the desire of the current administration and its supporters...

Focus
The scope of a weapons collection programme may encompass small arms, light weapons and ammunition
a) held illegally by civilians;
b) held legally but no longer wanted by civilians; and
c) acquired legally by civilians, but subsequently rendered illegal as a result of legislative reform.

To some of you, be careful what you wish for

A weapons collection programme may be carried out by one or more competent authorities of the State, which may work in cooperation with or which may delegate implementation to
a) the United Nations;
b) international, regional or sub-regional organizations;
c) non-governmental organizations; and/or
d) the private sector.

The mark of the Beast

This document provides guidance on adequate marking and recordkeeping of small arms, light weapons, their parts, components and ammunition. It covers technical aspects of marking, as well as effective recordkeeping infrastructure, for use at the national level in support of the national tracing system.
This document is intended to help States adopt and implement measures to ensure that small arms and light weapons, their parts, components and ammunition, are adequately marked and to encourage the small arms and light weapons manufacturing industry to assist in developing means of protecting against the removal and alteration of markings.
It provides guidance on different methods of marking, as well as on the types of markings to be applied at the time of manufacture, import, transfer from government stocks to permanent civilian use, permanent confiscation and deactivation.

www.smallarmsstandards.org...

ETA
This Item still has not been defined yet. Note the word Civilians

03.30 National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons

Maybe they are writing it as we speak during the current assembly. That's an important one

reply to post by rnaa


You might learn some more here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jibeho


You might learn something more here:

Reid v. Covert

A readable analysis of the case is presented here: Wikipedia: Reid v. Covert.. The precedent making finding of the court was that

"no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."

And for further reference I suggest you study:

The U.S. Constitution Especially Article II Section 2 Clause 2.
Wikipedia has a very good discussion of A2S2C2 here: Wikipedia: Treaty Clause where the money quote is:

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert. The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

Finally, to see how the A2S2C2 clause relates to the proposed treaty I recommend you review once again the Constitutional provisions in Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 15 and 16 and Amendment 2.

For emphasis you could reread the sections from the draft treat that I quoted above that specifically said that this was a treaty regulating trade between nations and not dictating internal laws.

reply to post by jibeho

Something more to chew on.

International Small Arms Control Standards.

Still being written....

Sign the treaty and open your doors

etc, etc, etc...

Once again, the treaty is addressing INTERNATIONAL WEAPONS TRADE.

It has NOTHING to do with dictating what an individual nation's internal civilian gun ownership laws are. It is providing an international framework for regulating the INTERNATIONAL gun trade.

The Mark of the Beast? Really? You think that putting serial numbers on WEAPONS parts is a sign of the apocalypse? Are you sure you really want to base your argument on that kind of twisted dung heap? What then of the manufacturer that engraves the bible verse referencing the God of Love and Jesus the Lord of Peace on killing machines sent into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is a really, really, bad interpretation of this treaty to think that anything in it can override the Constitution, and I am extremely offended that you think it is useful to lie about that possibility. Beyond the fact that it is an indictment on your own education experience that allows you to believe this (it is a simple concept, taught in every high school civics class), it is insulting that you want to turn the perception of an arms treaty that actually has the effect of helping to protect our ALLIED NATIONS from predatory destabilization by our RIVAL NATIONS into some "evil Men in Black are going to come in the dead of night and confiscate my BB gun" conspiracy.

This treaty will have ZERO affect on what weapons are legally available in the United States. ZERO. NADA. NIL.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Eventually? It's essentially a debate society already. Any teeth it ever had have long since been worn away to nothing. Any force it has is largely the United States and its affiliated allies, meaning NATO.

Nothing in this treaty means a thing if it's contrary to the Constitution. Constitution trumps all. As the bunny pointed out earlier, let's wish long life and good health to the current SCOTUS members.

It has plenty of teeth, but they are evil teeth!

Just russia/china and NATO warmongering among themselves and dragging everyone into the pits of hell!

Most of the corruption lies in the security council. The general assembly is half-way decent.

I don't think we see the same faults with it but I still respect your opinion.

reply to post by jibeho

The following could apply anywhere the UN see fit.

Your statement doesn't make sense. The UN doesn't 'apply' the statement. It is a description of a problem. Are you saying that the UN is going to create a problem?

Organized crime? Say, we have an organized crime problem right here in the good old USA.

And are their weapons being supplied in military quantities by the Romanians or the South Africans? And if they are do you not want the International Community to help stop that illegal smuggling operations? What are you talking about?

I remind you of the Supreme Court finding in Reid v. Covert. This is the key concept you MUST keep in mind when studying this treaty:

"no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."

in other words, as restated in Wikipedia

an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law

There is simply NO scope for the United Nations to override the U.S. Constitution (or of any other Nation for that matter). For you to continuing to argue that the UN does have such power displays both your ignorance of the Constitution you are pretending to protect and insults the intelligence of your readers.

Originally posted by tmeister182
Our Constitution does not allow treaties to override our laws. The commie can commit to anything he wants to but the people will be just as happy to send UN troops, home in a body bag, as anyone else if they try to abridge our rights.

There is nothing communist about liberals and the UN. Everything is controlled by rich satanists, people who sell their soul to the devil in exchange for material wealth. Religious people should be able to understand basic stuff.

And I am no fan of communism either because communism is supported by atheists. People who have no ambitions in life and just live for the sake of living.

The UN has no authority within the US borders nor does any mandate on any civilian regardless of any treaty the US government enters into with the UN.

Our Constitution prohibits it without the unanimous consent of the PEOPLE


Its Treason