H. Res. 814: In defense of the second amendment against UN Small Arms treaty

H. Res. 814: In defense of the second amendment

November 24, 2012 by ppjg

http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012...png?w=600&h=13
http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012....png?w=46&h=48Marti Oakley (c) Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

__________________________________________________ _______________
Apparently there are still a few public officials who will honor the Constitution left in the House of Representatives. Many of these representatives recognized the threat to the second amendment inherent in the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty, which the president has indicated he would sign, bypassing congress and ratification by the states, is intended to be handed back over to the Secretary of State to implement by agency decree and imposed upon the states.

http://ppjg.files.wordpress.com/2012...pg?w=300&h=228 While being sold to the public as simply a guideline for limiting the sales of small arms to the same countries we are many times waging war with, the treaty would severely affect the sale and ownership of small arms i.e., private gun ownership, here in the states. The obvious end goal included in many other global goals, is the disarmament of US gun owners.

The UN Small Arms treaty is nothing more than the effort to end all gun ownership anywhere in the world, except those weapons used by the military forces around the globe. With the UN attempting to gift itself the right to construct its own military with an eye on becoming the only military force on the planet, our right to keep and bear arms is more important than ever.

The Small Arms Treaty will not slow down or even minimally impact the arms trading and dealing that is conducted globally.

Arms controls for peace while we expand the global wars

“In what has to be the epitome of duplicity, Hillary Clinton is now conspiring with UN officials to begin the disarmament of the citizens of the US via this pseudo-treaty. Its all for world peace, right? Obviously not, as Clinton gave an excited speech in May 2012, to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference describing the new six-point global plan for war intended to encompass numerous countries and her obvious desire for her department to be part and parcel of the newly emerging “global wars everywhere” plan.

Clinton’s obvious disregard or refusal to acknowledge the deaths of children resulting from these wars is clearly an indication that the woman is lying about her desire for world peace. But I think we already knew that.”

Please contact your representatives and encourage them to support H.Res. 814. It may well be just another half-hearted effort to make you think they are actually opposed to this treaty, but it will give you a chance to voice your objections directly to your representative. FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

Read the bill ….
__________________________________________________ ________________

H.RES 814

Sponsor: Rep Kelly, Mike [PA-3] (introduced 11/16/2012) Cosponsors (7
Latest Major Action: 11/16/2012 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 814

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or to any similar agreement on the arms trade.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 16, 2012

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or to any similar agreement on the arms trade.

Whereas in October 2009, the United States voted in the United Nations General Assembly to participate in the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty;

Whereas in July 2012, the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty convened to negotiate the text of the Arms Trade Treaty;

Whereas in November 2012, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted to hold a final negotiating conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in March 2013, on the basis of the text of July 2012;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty; (emphasis added)

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment; (emphasis added)

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality, recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, and is thereby dangerous to the security of the United States;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty’s criteria for assessing the potential consequences of arms transfers are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty’s model for using these criteria is incompatible with the decision making model for arms transfers employed by the United States under Presidential Decision Directive 34, which dates from 1995;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty will create opportunities to engage in `lawfare’ against the United States via the misuse of the treaty’s criteria in foreign tribunals and international fora;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel;

Whereas the creation of an international secretariat to administer and assist in the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty risks the delegation of authority to a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the people of the United States;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty urges the provision of capacity building assistance from signatory nations to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, which could create a source of permanent funding to a new international organization that would be susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty risks imposing costly regulatory burdens on United States businesses, for example, by creating onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms;

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has not been signed by the President and received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect as customary international law, jus cogens, or any other principle of international law that bypasses the treaty power in article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution; (emphasis added)

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has merely been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect, including any obligation to refrain from defeating the object and purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty, under any provision of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which the United States is not a party;

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has merely been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect, as an international agreement other than a treaty, as a sole executive agreement, or in any other way; and

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has been signed by the President and has received the advice and consent of the Senate, is a non-self-executing treaty that has no domestic legal effect within the United States, unless and until it has been adopted by the enactment of implementing legislation by the Congress:

Now, therefore, be itResolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and

(2) until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by the Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
UN Small Arms Treaty & Obama’s six-point plan for global war « The PPJ Gazette/
Find Your Representative · House.gov
The new Obama doctrine, a six-point plan for global war | StratRisks


H. Res. 814: In defense of the second amendment « The PPJ Gazette