Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    Final Version of Arms Trade Treaty Released; Civilian Disarmament on Track

    Wednesday, 27 March 2013 14:55

    Final Version of Arms Trade Treaty Released; Civilian Disarmament on Track


    Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.



    NEW YORK — Just before noon on Wednesday, Australian ambassador and president of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty conference, Peter Woolcott, released his final version of the global gun control agreement.

    Upon publication of the document, Woolcott informed delegates that they have 24 hours to confer with their respective governments and then report tomorrow for a final vote.

    Apart from a couple of technical reviews by the drafting committee scheduled to be completed by 2:00 p.m., this is the last revision of the document, and Woolcott said nations must now “take it or leave it.”

    For so many reasons, the United States delegation must choose the latter option. A few sections of the proposed agreement are provided below, each of which would require the federal government to unconstitutionally infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

    To begin, the Preamble of the Arms Trade Treaty points to the United Nations Charter as the source of guiding principles upon which the agreement is based. Citizens of the United States, however, recognize God as the source of all rights they enjoy.

    Not even the Constitution claims to be the giver of rights; it is merely the protector of them.

    The ultimate American statement on the issue of the provenance of rights was written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

    The UN would see the Declaration of Independence replaced by the Declaration of Human Rights and would have the Creator replaced with government as the source of rights.

    Another paragraph of the Arms Trade Treaty’s preamble grants the United Nations the power to authorize “end users” and “end use” of conventional arms.

    Where in the Constitution is an unelected and unaccountable body of international bureaucrats given the right to determine who is or is not authorized to buy, sell, or trade weapons?

    Next, the Arms Trade Treaty preamble reaffirms the “sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms.” The federal government has no right whatsoever to regulate or control conventional arms. While the governments of the 50 states of the United States may exercise such control as part of their police power, the Second Amendment explicitly forbids the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Another provision declares “that civilians, particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict and armed violence.”

    While on its face potentially true, during the 20th century, hundreds of millions of women and children were killed in wars started by the governments of the world. These conflicts employed weapons not in the hands of civilians, but under the control of “legitimate regimes.”

    Given that the Arms Trade Treaty specifically grants the UN and “state parties” exclusive control over the manufacture, purchase, possession, sale, trade, and transfer of weapons of every size — from handgun to intercontinental missile — how can it claim to be the best hope of protecting women and children from armed conflict? In fact, in nearly every case of mass killings by government, the people targeted were first disarmed, leaving all weapons in the hands of government, preventing the people from resisting the march of tyranny.

    Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer the following items is regulated by the terms of the treaty:

    (a) Battle tanks;
    (b) Armoured [sic] combat vehicles;
    (c) Large-calibre [sic] artillery systems;
    (d) Combat aircraft;
    (e) Attack helicopters;
    (f) Warships;
    (g) Missiles and missile launchers; and
    (h) Small arms and light weapons.

    Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.

    As the representative of one pro-gun control organization told this reporter last week, “Guns without bullets are no deadlier than baseball bats.” The UN plans to eventually rid the world of privately owned weapons; failing to do that, however, they will prevent the purchase (or reloading) of ammunition.

    Reports around the country reveal that shortages of ammunition are already leaving many without rounds to use in their lawfully owned firearms.

    Article 4 rounds out the regulations, placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme, as well.
    Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”

    This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”

    Should the U.S. delegation vote in favor of this treaty (and President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both signaled that they should), the federal government will be obligated to begin compiling a list of who owns, buys, sells, trades, or transfers any of the weapons included in the list provided above, as well as the ammunition, parts, and components of those weapons.

    After creating this database, the federal government will be required under the provisions of Article 5(4) of the Arms Trade Treaty to “provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other States Parties.”
    That’s right. The UN demands that the list of gun and ammo owners not only be in the hands of our own government, but be sent to foreign regimes, as well.

    Americans are right to recognize this registry as the first step toward confiscation.

    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.

    Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.

    In very clear terms, the Arms Trade Treaty will require that the federal government of the United States force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens will be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.

    Section 4 of Article 12 requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.

    Finally, the agreement instructs governments to take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty. If they can’t seem to get it done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”

    The conference will reconvene at UN headquarters tomorrow morning. Delegations will then vote on the treaty and report to their home governments. The New American will report from the scene of this historic event.

    Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and is currently on assignment in New York to cover the Arms Trade Treaty conference. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.
    Related articles:
    Gun Control Group Calls for Strict Control of Arms, Ammo in UN Treaty
    "Bizarre Interpretation of Second Amendment" is Obstacle to UN Gun Grab
    Senate Votes to Keep U.S. Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty
    Final Version of Arms Trade Treaty Released; Civilian Disarmament on Track
    UN Arms Trade Treaty: National Lists of Gun Owners; Ammunition Regulation
    UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms
    UN Arms Trade Conference Begins, Sec. General Calls for "Robust" Treaty

    http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/14931-final-version-of-arms-trade-treaty-released-disarmament-of-civilians-on-track





  2. #2
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    Gun groups promise fight as U.N. inches toward override of Second Amendment

    By Tom Howell Jr.
    -
    The Washington Times
    Thursday, March 28, 2013

    American gun rights advocates said Thursday that they remain determined to block a far-reaching U.S. agreement on international arms sales, warning that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the U.S. gun market, even as the accord ran into an unexpected last-minute snag in negotiations in New York.

    Objections from North Korea, Syria and Iran prevented negotiators from clinching a deal by acclamation on the proposed U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, although diplomats and private advocacy groups say they still anticipate an overwhelming positive vote when the world body's General Assembly votes on the agreement next week.

    But American gun rights activists insist the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable because it includes “small arms and light weapons” alongside battle tanks and combat aircraft 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.

    “Our main concern is that civilian firearms are included in the scope of this treaty,” said Thomas Mason, executive secretary for the Americas at the World Forum on Shooting Activities, which counts the National Rifle Association as a member and opposes the U.N. treaty.

    Mr. Mason said the treaty has the potential to disrupt the market for imported firearms that accounts for a chunk of U.S. gun sales. He said language that calls for national control lists could be “bootstrapped” into a kind of gun registry, a concept that pro-gun advocates have decried during the debate over gun legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings in December.

    The Senate objects

    Critics of the treaty were heartened by the Senate’s resistance to ratifying the document, assuming President Obama sent it to the chamber for ratification. In its budget debate last weekend, 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 this week. “It would be pointless for the president to sign such a treaty and expect the Senate to go along. We won’t ratify it.


    “Treaty supporters say a deal is needed to bring order to massive cross-border arms flows, in part to deny firepower to governments that commit human rights violations, face international sanctions or are allied with terrorist groups. In addition to heavy military hardware such as battle tanks and attack helicopters, the accord also will govern international trade in small arms and light weapons ranging from assault rifles to handguns.

    Some activists say the draft treaty produced by U.N. negotiators did not go far enough.”We need a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, not just some of them,” Anna Macdonald, head of arms control for the international human rights group Oxfam, told The Associated Press. “We need a treaty that will make a difference to the lives of the people living in Congo, Mali, Syria and elsewhere who suffer each day from the impacts of armed violence.”

    But negotiations leading up to the first-of-its-kind agreement in New York have been rocky at best, even before the objections from Iran and North Korea scuttled hopes for a quick conclusion Thursday.


    Efforts to affirm the treaty got off to an inauspicious start, when the session was delayed for about an hour to sort out crowding in the room.


    Ambassador Peter Woolcott of Australia later suspended the meeting amid objections, including a complaint from the Iranian ambassador that the treaty was “susceptible to politicization and discrimination” and did not allow nations to adequately defend against aggression.


    Although the treaty needed the support of all 193 member nations, Mexico later suggested that the conference adopt it despite the objections of Iran, Syria and North Korea — all of which are under some degree of U.N. sanction. Russia prevented that, saying such a maneuver would be “a manipulation of consensus.”


    The treaty now will go before the General Assembly, where it is expected to win overwhelming approval. This article is based in part on wire service reports.

    Pressure to sign on

    Despite the Senate vote, numerous groups have pressured Mr. Obama to support the treaty. Amnesty International staged a rally in front of the White House to highlight the number of innocent people around the world who have been killed by trafficked weapons.


    Darryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the NRA and other gun rights advocacy groups have distorted the meaning of the treaty. He said it is about the global trade of dangerous weapons, not individual rights within the United States.


    “It does not affect, in any way whatsoever, the ability of an individual American to go down to Kmart and purchase a hunting rifle,” he said. “This is not about what one person in Colorado might sell to a person in Wyoming.”


    The American Bar Association also released a white paper that concluded the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.




    Read more: Gun groups promise fight as U.N. inches toward override of Second Amendment - Washington Times
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •